Support NeoGAF

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

Definitely shows that low tech ar has more possibilities than high tech vr does. And more mass market acceptable.

It's pretty funny that you seem to think that considering you've been shitting on VR for months now.

It's almost as if you'll say whatever ridiculous nonsense you can to try to validate your factually wrong opinion

But I'm sure the two have nothing to do with eachother. /S

 

[UncleSporky]

I think you are using too narrow of a definition for AR. The camera isn't what makes Pokemon Go AR, the entire gameplay based on using real-world locations is AR. Overlaying a virtual game onto the real world is the core principle of Augmented Reality. You don't need an image for the game to be AR.

You're using too broad of a definition for AR.

Modern smartphones aren't all by default some sort of augmented reality just because they "augment" our experience in the world by telling us where to go on GPS. No more than all video games are virtual reality because they create a "virtual" world to explore.

Google Maps isn't AR and Uncharted 4 isn't VR.

AR and VR are terms that mean very specific things. AR is camera footage with rendered things overlaid on a screen, and VR is a screen that encompasses your field of vision to give you the sense that you are somewhere else.

 

[Neiteio]

You don't follow the market at all, didn't you?

So what percentage of PC owners have VR? Honest question. Heck, what percentage of GAF members have VR (GAF being an outlier)?

 

[tiebreaker]

People don't play pokemon GO for the AR though. More of its geo tracking.

 

[Nzyme32]

These threads never cease to make me laugh!

 

[Vic]

Nobody gives a shit about the AR implementation.

People care about the fact that they can finally play a Pokemon game on their phones, and that they can meet up with people in the real world utilizing geocaching.

THAT is the draw of Pokemon GO, it has absolutely nothing to do with AR.

The AR functionality is definitively a big part of this game market appeal. It amplifies the concept of capturing Pokémons in the real world for a lot of people who also couldn't careless about the technological aspect of it.

 

[UncleSporky]

So what percentage of PC owners have VR? Honest question. Heck, what percentage of GAF members have VR (GAF being an outlier)?

You didn't imply anything about percentages, you said a small contingency. You could use similar logic to say Pokemon Go players are also a small contingency of smartphone owners. Heck, they also make up a small percentage of all smartphone owners too.

 

[Neiteio]

To be clear, VR is more appealing to me, personally. I like convincing depth and verticality; I like the tactile solidity of objects in a virtual space; and I like the full-body presence it creates. Also, creating a new world is creatively liberating for obvious reasons.

I've just been commenting on the mass acceptance of one medium vs. another. I think that the average person enjoys their escapist entertainment but still wants to feel anchored in the real world to some degree. There's a social resistance to disconnecting completely. That may change in the future, but right now many people have a hard time divorcing how they look on the outside (wearing the mask, etc) to what they experience on the inside (in the virtual world).

Again, this isn't diminishing VR. It's just speaking to human nature. Something that augments the real world, where you can interact face to face with real people, is innately more accessible since people are, by nature, social creatures that want to be with each other. In that respect, I think the masses more readily embrace AR, even if all factors (i.e. price, etc) are equal.

You didn't imply anything about percentages, you said a small contingency. You could use similar logic to say Pokemon Go players are also a small contingency of smartphone owners. Heck, they also make up a small percentage of all smartphone owners too.

The suggestion was that VR adoption among PC owners is small. GO is already one of the most downloaded apps ever.

 

[Bronetta]

I've been saying it for a long time but AR will be a bigger deal than VR to the masses.

First company to properly use holograms in video games will make billions.

 

[SiegfriedFM]

I believe that's his point, that the game has really pushed the benefits of AR to the fore (you remain connected to the real world and are able to socialise and interact) while VR, while more immersive and able to send you to entirely fantastic worlds involves having to isolate yourself from the people and environment around you.

A criticism of VR from the start was that you'd have to wear the silly-looking goggles and essentially put yourself into sensory deprivation (from the real world) to use.

An alternative title for the thread could be "Could the popularity of AR due to Pokémon GO reduce the already dropping VR interest?"

If anything, Pokemon Go shows that people are perfectly willing to look stupid (even in public) and put themselves in sensory deprivation (to focus on the screen) to play a really simple game. If you can do more than see a Pokemon before you, I think people will want to try it out.

 

[MUnited83]

Don't agree, AR is a big part of the Pokemon Go success, it's enough to look at all the tweets and post in general with photos of Pokemon in real world places etc

The big part is the Pokemon brand and the social interaction.

 

[Vic]

The big part is the Pokemon brand and the social interaction.

Which is enabled with the help of certain technological functionalities.

 

[Neiteio]

The big part is the Pokemon brand and the social interaction.

Definitely. But the AR grounds it in the real world, which I think is important in its own right. Combined with the geolocation, it turns the real world into the game's playground.

AR is enhancing your real life, in the real world, with game-like elements. You're still connected.

 

[Chobel]

The comparison doesn't make any sense.

 

[ArtHands]

To be clear, VR is more appealing to me, personally. I like convincing depth and verticality; I like the tactile solidity of objects in a virtual space; and I like the full-body presence it creates. Also, creating a new world is creatively liberating for obvious reasons.

I've just been commenting on the mass acceptance of one medium vs. another. I think that the average person enjoys their escapist entertainment but still wants to feel anchored in the real world to some degree. There's a social resistance to disconnecting completely. That may change in the future, but right now many people have a hard time divorcing how they look on the outside (wearing the mask, etc) to what they experience on the inside (in the virtual world).

Again, this isn't diminishing VR. It's just speaking to human nature. Something that augments the real world, where you can interact face to face with real people, is innately more accessible since people are, by nature, social creatures that want to be with each other. In that respect, I think the masses more readily embrace AR, even if all factors (i.e. price, etc) are equal.


The suggestion was that VR adoption among PC owners is small. GO is already one of the most downloaded apps ever.

What if it is small at the moment because there's a supply shortage for vive and rift and not due to lack of demand? Because that's what happened.

 

[Neiteio]

What if it is small at the moment because there's a supply shortage for vive and rift and not due to lack of demand? Because that's what happened.

I mean, I hope you're right. I don't want to see VR die out. I'm just not terribly confident that's the reason why mainstream interest seems so low, though.

 

[Foggy]

AR definitely has a path to mainstream succes with less friction, but I do think in the long term that VR has a higher ceiling.

 

[JackHerer]

AR is the future, VR is a stepping stone in a way but also has its own place beside AR (ideally the two techs will merge into one device capable of both), but the implementation in Pokemon Go doesn't really excite me.

The possibilities of a deeper experience with "true AR" using an HMD like Hololens or Magic Leap that can make the Pokemon actually feel like they are grounded in our reality rather than just being pasted over a camera feed.... that excites me.

Imagine something like Amie in AR. You let your Charizard out of its pokeball and it is standing in your environment with proper scale, 3d audio, and object permenance so that you can walk around it and view from all angles. You could then pet it and feed it pokefood

 

[bj00rn_]

Congratulations on managing to shoehorn VR into generating yet another Pokemon Go thread. Your loaded question is worthless.

 

[Neiteio]

AR is the future, VR is a stepping stone in a way but also has its own place beside AR (ideally the two techs will merge into one device capable of both), but the implementation in Pokemon Go doesn't really excite me.

The possibilities of a deeper experience with "true AR" using an HMD like Hololens or Magic Leap that can make the Pokemon actually feel like they are grounded in our reality rather than just being pasted over a camera feed.... that excites me.

Imagine something like Amie in AR. You let your Charizard out of its pokeball and it is standing in your environment with proper scale, 3d audio, and object permenance so that you can walk around it and view from all angles. You could then pet it and feed it pokefood

That sounds amazing. If it can be accomplished with normal-looking eyewear, or something as inconspicuous as sunglasses, it could be huge.

 

[UncleSporky]

AR is the future, VR is a stepping stone in a way but also has its own place beside AR (ideally the two techs will merge into one device capable of both), but the implementation in Pokemon Go doesn't really excite me.

The possibilities of a deeper experience with "true AR" using an HMD like Hololens or Magic Leap that can make the Pokemon actually feel like they are grounded in our reality rather than just being pasted over a camera feed.... that excites me.

Imagine something like Amie in AR. You let your Charizard out of its pokeball and it is standing in your environment with proper scale, 3d audio, and object permenance so that you can walk around it and view from all angles. You could then pet it and feed it pokefood

The cool thing is, this is already possible today with VR. I've done the stuff you're talking about, and that was like a 10 minute demo at Best Buy.

The main problem with AR doing what you're talking about is giving the software a frame of reference, what the shape of the room and the objects in it look like, so it can properly position everything and block parts of objects if a chair is in front of them or whatever. This is still a problem being worked on, and/or not really possible on a dead easy, mass market level with current tech.

 

[Neiteio]

The cool thing is, this is already possible today with VR. I've done the stuff you're talking about, and that was like a 10 minute demo at Best Buy.

The main problem with AR doing what you're talking about is giving the software a frame of reference, what the shape of the room and the objects in it look like, so it can properly position everything and block parts of objects if a chair is in front of them or whatever. This is still a problem being worked on, and/or not really possible on a dead easy, mass market level with current tech.

It's not possible with VR today. What he's describing is putting 3D objects in the real world with the same convincing presence as VR. What you experienced with VR was convincing presence in a make-believe world. Which is great in its own right, but it's not what he's describing. He's describing something more like sci-fi-style holograms. Like making Charizard appear in your living room, in real life, and it really feels like he's there.

But yeah, you noted all the work that still needs to be done to make AR that effective. AR needs to figure out proper scaling, positioning, etc, for it to feel truly present in the environment.

 

[Zalusithix]

Pokemon Go could have had a Google Cardboard style VR mode tacked on instead of it's current AR tack on and been just as successful as it is now. Additionally, in that hypothetical situation, it would have said as much about the viability of VR as it does about AR in the current state: nothing.

The two things have a weak correlation at best. The fact that many turn off the AR says as much. If the appeal of the game was AR, people wouldn't be turning it off.

Don't get me wrong, AR certainly has a future, but Pokemon Go isn't the demonstration of that. It's even less a demonstration of a declined interest in VR.

 

[Neiteio]

Pokemon Go could have had a Google Cardboard style VR mode tacked on instead of it's current AR tack on and been just as successful as it is now. Additionally, in that hypothetical situation, it would have said as much about the viability of VR as it does about AR in the current state: nothing.

The two things have a weak correlation at best. The fact that many turn off the AR says as much. If the appeal of the game was AR, people wouldn't be turning it off.

Don't get me wrong, AR certainly has a future, but Pokemon Go isn't the demonstration of that. It's even less a demonstration of a declined interest in VR.

If GO required you to strap something to your head, I don't think the masses would've gotten over the hump of feeling comfortable playing it in public, and it wouldn't have gone viral

 

[borghe]

That's not the case, because you could have Pokemon experiences on both AR and VR.

so that point went straight over your head

right.. my point was that AR and VR are unrelated. Yes, you could have a pokemon game in both, because the two are unrelated.

 

[Stevey]

Everything you say in the OP is right.

But Pokemon Go isn't related to VR at all.

They're two completely different things that have no bearing on each other whatsoever.

 

[kennyamr]

"Could the Pokemon Go success reduce the already dropping console gaming interest?"

I mean, I can change that to anything like "Digimon," or "JRPGs," or even "tablets."
They are not mutually exclusive or even closely related.

No, it will not affect VR at all.

 

[Symbiotx]

You're really arguing AR vs VR. They both can exist without eliminating the other. Pokemon is successful, but its hype will die down when summer is over, weather gets bad, and it starts to be repetitive. The only reason it got huge success over ingress was being "Pokemon" which has always been successful.

You have a lot of negative opinions you stated in your opening paragraph that I don't agree with, but specifically "hype dying down" is silly when PSVR (the most affordable accessible version of VR) will be launching soon.

Personally, AR doesn't do anything for me, but I'm extremely excited about VR. I still don't think one takes away from the other though. I think riding a bike or reading a book are equally as dangerous to VR, which is to say not at all. They're just different activities you can do at different times.

 

[cakely]

No, and I dislike the assumption included in your question that VR interest is dropping.

Going by your post history I'm guessing you think that VR will be doing great once Scorpio ships with it.

Oh, wow, I didn't even notice that you suggest Hololens as a platform for Pokemon Go. How would that even work?

 

[Zalusithix]

If GO required you to strap something to your head, I don't think the masses would've gotten over the hump of feeling comfortable playing it in public, and it wouldn't have gone viral

Go doesn't require you to use AR either. It's an optional aspect that many turn off. This isn't far detached from a fictional VR mode that's entirely not needed to play the game. Neither say much about the interest in them as technologies. The interest is in the free to play Pokemon accessible from nearly any device combined with geocaching. The basic AR is window dressing.

It's not even doing anything new or exciting in the AR realm. If the AR itself was driving the success, other games would have succeeded in being massively popular before it.

 

[klaushm]

There was another thread with this topic, but, just to answer you.

I mean VR released, it had its first week of buzz and attenctions, but now the hype went down, it's too expensive,

Don't know if the hype wen't down, or it's just that most high-end devices are already available. Most of the buzz was about them. Wait for PSVR release, it'll be back. I can't talk about others, but i'm still hyped.

About the price, search for Google Glass price for a more "honest" comparison.

it lacks real and good games or "killer applications" and it's too uncomfortable and alienating to use...

When did companies started using AR? Have we seen it before in 3DS, PS Vita, smartphones and other devices? Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Why wasn't it a success until Pokemon GO, that is using things already used before?

All this questions is to show these: AR is here been commercially used for waaaaaay longer and now it has a killerapp, and it's not even because it did something new. It was just because it's Pokemon. Give the same amount of time to VR.

Pokemon Go concept instead is simple, easy for everyone, it pushs you to go play outside, joining other people in the real world, it's social, cool and everything...

Yeah. It is. That's the pros of AR, but, let's not forget the the cons.

AR pros:
- Makes your space more interactive;
- It is possible to use it without blocking the world around you;
- You won't be a "dorky" by using it in public. It's more social appealing;
AR cons:
- The changes are limited to the space you are in;
- You will be a "dorky" in public when interacting with the wind or shouting things;

VR pros:
- It completely changes the space around you. You could be in a 2x2 room, but in VR you are in spectator mode seen a battle in Pokemon Stadium

Spoiler

(never gonna happen, right Nintendo?)

;
- You don't have to be in other places to socialize with friends, just like everything else on internet;
VR cons:
- You would look like a "dorky" using it in public;
- The world around you is blocked (but we already have some "solutions", right Valve?);

I think it'd be even better with something like Hololens or Google Glass rather than VR

Again, if you are comparing the prices from something like Google Glass to HTC Vive, one of the most expensive VR to date, VR is waaaaaay cheaper.

So, AR has years of development and only now it has one killer app. Again, can we let VR have the same amount of time?

And about been social... People always tell how amazing the internet is because it connects people around the globe without needing to be near them, but... when it comes to VR, people forget about it.
VR can enhance all social activities on internet, like Facebook, Skype, playing MMOs, etc.

I'm not against AR. I'm pro AR and VR. What I'm against is saying "AR is better than VR" or the oposite. I think they both are awesome, different and will be the future in what they exceed.

 

[ieptbarakat]

AR will always be a cheapened experience for me, it's entire experience is heavily reliant on your current reality that the escapist aspect of me would never be satisfied with it.

Still though, it's clearly evident that the viral success of Pokemon Go wouldn't have happened in an isolated experience like a VR game or just a straight up regular mmo.

 

[metareferential]

Where's the "already dropping VR interest"?

I mean, where's the actual data. Because for what I know those things are selling fine, software is constantly coming and evolving, and the experiences are great.

Of course we're talking about a niche market, for now. Comparing it to something like Pokemon Go is dumb.

 

[omgwtfbentime]

VR is more of a niche hobby than AR is at this point, IMO. There's some good ideas there and it can be revolutionary but at best VR will be about as popular as home theater... itll certainly exist and do well but I don't think it will ever be a mass market product due to the logistics of playing it.

 

[Hoo-doo]

That's some crappy click bait title.



What a load of bollocks. VR interest is only growing. It's going to be massive.

Didn't you just get your Oculus?

I think outside of the already initiated and the hardcore (PC) gaming bubble, the arrival of VR has been pretty damn inconsequential. I've yet to hear anyone express real interest in VR outside of that realm. Not even PSVR.

I certainly don't get the impression the interest is growing. People seem rather apathetic so far. But that might just be me.

 

[krang]

VR interest is dropping? Everyone i know outside of the "hardcore" gaming community is extremely excited about VR especially more consumer friendly models like PSVR and the phone VR thing which escapes my mind.

VR and Pokemon Go are absolutely nothing alike and offer wildly different experiences as well i don't really understand the comparison.

You know different people to me.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

could apples reduce the 'already dropping interest' in oranges


ffs gaf

the narratives that some of you have created re: VR are already silly enough. to try and prop them up using the relative success of a smartphone app that's barely AR and whose success is hardly reliant on the actual AR element... i wanna south park freeze myself for five years so I can laugh at this nonsense later.

I mean VR released, it had its first week of buzz and attenctions, but now the hype went down, it's too expensive, it lacks real and good games or "killer applications" and it's too uncomfortable and alienating to use...

half of what you just posted is just plain unsubstantiated. VR today is first generation technology. It is expensive, that much is true - that's typical for first gen technology. As technology matures and enables more mature VR hardware and experiences, the cost too will lower and VR will become more accessible as a whole. Especially as cellphone technology continues to mature to the point where those devices can begin to deliver compelling VR experiences in their own right. That VR lacks 'real and good games' or 'killer applications' is debatable, but that it's too uncomfortable and alienating to use is pure conjecture generated by the echo chamber of VR skeptics that somehow feel emboldened by broken comparisons such as yours.

Pokemon Go concept instead is simple, easy for everyone, it pushs you to go play outside, joining other people in the real world, it's social, cool and everything...
I think it'd be even better with something like Hololens or Google Glass rather than VR

Pokemon GO is a smartphone app playable on over a hundred million devices that are already deeply ingrained into people's lives. It's barely AR, and comparisons to first-gen VR tech are both unmerited and utterly inexplicable.

Definitely shows that low tech ar has more possibilities than high tech vr does. And more mass market acceptable.

Pokemon GO's success proves none of that. Pokemon GO's success isn't even reliant on its AR functionality outside of the use of real world maps. All this shows is that a nostalgically-appealing and socially enabling smartphone app that's free and available to most of the developed world to use on a whim is more accessible than expensive first generation iterations of a new medium.


who'da thunk it!?!?!?

vr is future? vr tech had been here for like what 20 years?

so you don't actually know much about what VR is then, good, glad that's settled, but you'd think people would be content with just not commenting at all on things they don't know about
"VR has been around for a while" is not an acceptable talking point. It's tantamount to assuming back in 2006 that the iPhone could not ever achieve worldwide relevance and success because these things

had been around for 30 years and hardly took the world by storm
oh, they're powered by utterly different technology and there's a world of difference between what these two devices enable and endeavor to enable? well, you don't say.
Today's VR hardware endeavors to make use of modern technology, including fast and accurate motion tracking, screens that have high resolution and high refresh rates, intuitive and responsive motion control input devices, among other things, to induce a sensation of true-to-life presence within a virtual world. Stuff that the mall enclosures and HMDs of old could never achieve due to technological limitations. (even despite being far more expensive on average than the first wave of modern consumer-level VR hardware.) I consider the use of the phrase 'virtual reality' before Oculus's attempt to have been marketing gimmicks and not much more, whereas Oculus, Vive, and PSVR represent the birth of actual VR, capable of instilling that sensation of presence and therefore actually giving meaning to the Virtual Reality label.

"Battlefield 1 is going to have 'realistic graphics'? Realistic graphics have been around for 20 years, I read the back of Goldeneye's box, it says it right there, 'realistic graphics'. Therefore, I'm not convinced that Battlefield 1 can achieve that promise, not if Goldeneye couldn't."

That's what that shit reads like to me

 

[7DollarHagane]

Low tech, cheap, innovation with good gameplay and good characters has been a key to success for Nintendo for decades.

The people laughing at the comparison were laughing at the game boy's green/grey screen in 1990, and laughing at the two GameCubes duct taped together in 2006.

It doesn't always work but sometimes it works in a big, big way.

And it's not necessarily about vr vs ar, but a device that almost everyone has and is cheap, known tech vs a device almost nobody has and is expensive, unknown tech, it's no contest.

 

[Pizza]

Personally I find AR more exciting than VR. The minecraft hololense demo thing solidified the idea that it's rad to me.

I think Pokemon go is cute, but it isn't where I'd want an AR game to be for me to be excited about it. VR is doing cool shit right now, and PSVR is a reasonable enough price that I'll use it to jump into VR as a whole. I think VR will always be a relatively niche market tbh, not that that's a bad thing

 

[Jumeira]

The mental gymnastics are incredible.

Indeed. Surely traveling to Rio .

 

[Zalusithix]

Personally I find AR more exciting than VR. The minecraft hololense demo thing solidified the idea that it's rad to me.

That's an interesting take considering Minecraft as a game concept is more amenable to VR than AR. Minecraft in AR is interactive Legos at best; constrained by your physical environment. Minecraft in VR can take advantage of a full world, and the exploration/survival aspects that entails in addition to building. Then there's the sense of scale that's only possible in VR.

There's lots of interesting things that I can think to do with good AR. Playing Minecraft isn't one of them.

 

[Theanine3D]

Both VR and AR are just getting started. Calling for the death of VR this early is incredibly shortsighted.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Pokemon GO is more AR than VR I think.

I think that was the OP's point. Could it lead to AR becoming more popular than VR.

I think AR mobile games could definitely catch on. It's tech everyone already has in their pocket, doesn't require expensive extra hardware or wearing a helmet etc. It has a lot of mainstream potential I think.

VR I'm skeptical about catching on among regular Joes who didn't even want to wear 3D glasses at home.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

VR I'm skeptical about catching on among regular Joes who didn't even want to wear 3D glasses at home.

The market's 'refusal' (and it's hard for me to use that term in good faith considering that half of TVs today are 3D enabled) of 3D tech isn't solely due to the public's unwillingness to place glasses on their faces. There's a vast world of difference between the value of putting on a pair of glasses to see traditionally static images through a limited three dimensional lens and putting on a headset that for all intents and purposes lets you be somewhere else interacting with another world entirely on a whim.
I don't expect VR to gain much traction outside of enthusiast circles until the cost of entry lowers across the board, but that day will come, whether it's two or five or ten years from now, and by that time there will be a pretty impressive library of VR wares to choose from - well beyond the scope of mere video games, because VR's true strengths lie elsewhere.

 

[MisterHero]

Pokemon GO will kill VR for everyone, but a year later Nintendo will steal the entire market for themselves with Pokemon GO Home VR.

Yes, it will even outperform adult VR

 

[OrbitalBeard]

I've always felt that AR would be the technology that catches on with the mainstream.

VR isn't going to be a mainstream success for a very long time.

 

[jax]

Completely different markets. GO is primarily aimed at casual gamers, where VR is only for the hardcore.

So no, OP.

 

[Z3M0G]

VR has not released until PSVR has released.

 

[seb]

The number of people that have no fucking idea what VR is is staggering. This or I am being trolled... Am I being trolled?
I can't be the only one that don't see any relation *at all* between pokemon GO and VR.

jakiechanwtf.gif

 

[Metal B]

Is it really so hard to understand, that VR and AR can coexists, since both are different concepts and need different hardware. AR extends our real world with anything you want. VR on the other hand lets you experience anything you can imagine and even more.

The endgame of VR (the Matrix) is also seen as one possible endgame of mankind. If we can't travel to other stars, maybe we can travel into a new realities (where we can travel to other stars). There is even the theory, that we did not encounter aliens, because they all are at home and enjoying there version of the Martix,