SEGAbits Forums
Gaming => General Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: CrazyT on March 18, 2014, 11:59:20 pm
-
First there was the occulus rift which got a lot of attention in the last year. But how is a kickstarted team without the perfect expertise and wisdom usually a tech company has, going to perfect what looks like a complicated piece of tech. I wish them all the luck though
This is where Sony has come in now. They anounced their own VR now. So anyone excited? Will this find a massive appeal or will it be made to add another feature in the big appeal of the ps4?
Personally i've had a big issue with tech's evolution and the way people have been using it. I got a smartphone just like everyone nowadays, but i cant help being irritated by the real life anti social behaviour it has resulted in the majority of people. For example when you talk to someone and him/her not hearing a word of what you say because him/her too busy with the phone.
This created a great dislike for technoligy which divides people. I think VR is a very interesting thing, just not for me. It seems like a very antisocial technoligy. Maybe i'm exxegerating but that's just some of my concerns hence why I hope it doesn't take off
-
I have more faith in Oculus Rift than Sony's VR, only because they half ass support their add-ons.
-
Until VR can replicate or exceed a gamepad's level of performance, it'll never achieve anything more than gimmick status. Sorta like motion controls. Remember those? I bet Nintendo wishes you did.
-
Well, most of these projects will be using gamepads, at least on Oculus Rift with a mix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBylGcvRuek
Again they have added cameras to track mostly head movements to better interact with your in-game persona now. Honestly, seems more of a... 'TV replacement' giving you a more immersive picture.
-
Well, most of these projects will be using gamepads, at least on Oculus Rift with a mix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBylGcvRuek
Again they have added cameras to track mostly head movements to better interact with your in-game persona now. Honestly, seems more of a... 'TV replacement' giving you a more immersive picture.
Sorta defeats the whole immersion aspect of it...
-
Immersed in vision, its like saying the '3D effect' on a TV isn't more 'depth' because you are using a controller. Honestly, you say that the pad is the best way to play and they give you that option.
Instead of looking at a TV, you will see the world all around you, no edge, making you more immerse in the world and keeping traditional gameplay you like.
-
Immersed in vision, its like saying the '3D effect' on a TV isn't more 'depth' because you are using a controller. Honestly, you say that the pad is the best way to play and they give you that option.
Instead of looking at a TV, you will see the world all around you, no edge, making you more immerse in the world and keeping traditional gameplay you like.
The end goal of VR is total immersion. If you're not shooting for that, then all you have is a glorified television pressed right up against your face. How many people are honestly going to pay just for the ability to turn their heads and have the screen track with them? If people weren't willing to pay for 3D televisions, they're not going to go for an even worse gimmick like this. Hence, it's pointless.
-
You: If it doesn't do it better than controller don't bother.
Me: Uses controller.
You: Thats not VR.
Thread over.
-
Big question for me is, will it have .Hack?
-
I can't see VR ever taking off unless you have a HUGE dedicated room to move yourself in as VR tends to require space to move around in to control such a gaming experience.
It's a good idea for watching films or a live concert but for gaming, I just can't see it being ever a reality.
-
You: If it doesn't do it better than controller don't bother.
Me: Uses controller.
You: Thats not VR.
Thread over.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it needed to use a controller. I said it needed to meet or exceed the capabilities of a controller to be of any practical use.
So essentially:
Me: Gotta be as good as a controller.
You: It uses a controller.
Me: So it's just a dorky $350 headset with only a fraction of the benefits of actual VR.
"Thread over."
-
What this and oculus rift provide are alternatives to a flat television screen. They aren't replacing controllers, though they do have the added feature of matching head movements to camera movement which could take away the need for the right thumb stick controlling the camera.
I never saw stuff like this as something meant to "exceed a gamepad's level of performance", rather its meant to give more of an immersive visual experience, thus why it is more in competition with TVs and especially 3D TVs.
-
Well I can take back the part of Oculus being a kickstarted project and lacking the finance of a Sony and its morpheus.... since they have been bought by the devi.... facebook. Actually makes the situation even more easy for sony lol
-
What this and oculus rift provide are alternatives to a flat television screen. They aren't replacing controllers, though they do have the added feature of matching head movements to camera movement which could take away the need for the right thumb stick controlling the camera.
I never saw stuff like this as something meant to "exceed a gamepad's level of performance", rather its meant to give more of an immersive visual experience, thus why it is more in competition with TVs and especially 3D TVs.
Barry, Oculus isn't a serious contender to replace traditional televisions. Flatscreen LCDs are cheap, can accommodate multiple viewers, and don't involve you strapping a ridiculous-looking one pound hunk of plastic and metal to your head. There is no competition with 3D either because companies didn't see very much profit in it. For the most part, they've all moved on to pushing 4K. 3D gaming platforms never really caught on either. It made people queasy and gave them headaches (you're probably gonna see a lot of the same with having a screen pressed right up against someone's eyeballs for prolonged periods). Most people turn the 3DS's 3D-effect off. The very existence of the 2DS was Nintendo's own tacit admission that 3D wasn't the next big thing.
Being able to control the camera with your head is hardly anything special either. Kinect will do the same thing for $250 less, and the only games that would really benefit from it are flight sims and driving games. Even still, I'd argue I could come up with a controller that you enable you to utilize more of your fingers to make up for it. You could add two pressure sensitive buttons around the grip of the controller or place two additional triggers that sit lower behind the first set (you'd use your middle fingers on them). Heck, tilt sensitivity would work really well with flight sims. Wanna bank right or left? Tilt the controller.
-
Displays in glasses are old, they had those around for years. I consider getting one to replace my monitor, because they are small, and stay in one position.
-
The thing isn't pricey at all, developer kits are 300 dollars and they suggested trying a lower priced option for launch. This is different from Kinect, for one it already has more developers working on games than Kinect ever did in the last 3-4 years its been out. I think its becoming more of a 'I don't want it personally so I think its going to fail.' argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games
-
The thing isn't pricey at all, developer kits are 300 dollars and they suggested trying a lower priced option for launch. This is different from Kinect, for one it already has more developers working on games than Kinect ever did in the last 3-4 years its been out. I think its becoming more of a 'I don't want it personally so I think its going to fail.' argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games)
I dunno, George. Looks like most of that list is padded out with cheap games made in Unity by indie devs.
-
You know, to eleborate further on what I said in the OP. I think VR is going to be something people use in their own (bed)rooms, possibly before they sleep. And I can imagine people really loving the step into a paradise or whatever greats developers create. It makes people silly and look dumb so that's why I think it'll be a private use experience. Of course within online games as well.
Anyone think this could be quite addicting? For myself I think it could if I gave it a chance and bought one for myself to try it out. But honestly doesnt sound very healthy.. as why i might have to keep a distance from this
-
VR is going to be another way to enslave people. By charging people money for something that is free, and attainable, but because money will be worthless.
-
I'm personally betting on the apes enslaving us first.