Support NeoGAF

[StevieP]

I had a response typed up but Badwulf summed it up for me.




Morpheus just needs to do the same.

As an optional and likely-expensive accessory? lol

 

[Devilgunman]

If only there were millions of PS4 owners out there already...

If Sony aim to mainly sell Mopheus to PS4 owner, it will become nothing more than a glorified PS4 accessory. That isn't that they focus on at all. They want VR to be its own platform with separate software development.

The PS4 is just a vessel for VR. Just like how PS2 strong armed DVD's. It could be used to introduce new people to gaming or vice versa.

I would only worry about the ps eye and move. Are they definite requirements for VR? If not, just sell bundles without them.

That isn't comparable. DVD playback was integrated into the PS2 just like Bluray was in PS3. There is no extra cost for it to work so it is easy for a consumer outside gaming to pick it up and use it as media player. VR on the other hand requires much more hassle as I explained. Not only you need a console itself, you need other accessories to make it work. That won't be easy as selling PS2/PS3 as media player.

Also, as a media player, Sony has little to do to generate contents because DVD and Bluray are made by movies manufacturers. For VR, it require software development and investment just like any other video game. Its content will be viewed as another type of video game instead of media so the idea of using PS4 as vessel for VR won't necessary work at all.

 

[jroc74]

Eh, Oculus will be fine regardless.

I agree. I feel either one will be fine if either scenario happens. For all the hate Kinect gets.....IMO the experience was more enjoyable vs motion controls for what it was supposed to be. I really felt disconnected, not tied down and in control at the same time. You have wrist straps with motion controls...

Its a shame Kinect isnt doing better as far as games.

I dont think one doing well will kill off the other. And it sucking right now wont hurt it as a whole. If anything VR doing well right now gives other companies a better feeling about jumping on the band wagon.

If more companies thought the way this article writer thinks.....there would be no iPhone, no Android, no Linux, no HDTV's, no Hybrid vehicles, etc. We wouldnt see MS and BB still trying to compete in a very uphill mobile phone battle. We wouldnt have the orig Xbox or 360 or One.

We wouldnt have had the Wii. Or Playstation 1. There would be less 3D movies. And no matter what anyone says...3D movies have come a long way to actually being enjoyable.

Companies cannot be afraid to take chances. You wont hit a home run every time, but you have to at least attempt to swing.

We need both. Console VR is great and open-platform VR is great. They both hit different markets and expose people to VR in different ways. VR is going to be all the better for having as many platforms as possible served. Oculus will benefit from console VR and console VR will benefit from PC VR. And add in mobile VR and its another 'win-win' situation for VR and everybody involved.

Exactly..

 

[Auto-Reply]

We need both. Console VR is great and open-platform VR is great. They both hit different markets and expose people to VR in different ways. VR is going to be all the better for having as many platforms as possible served. Oculus will benefit from console VR and console VR will benefit from PC VR. And add in mobile VR and its another 'win-win' situation for VR and everybody involved.

Exactly, I hope it will at least be a small success on PS4... at best a huge hit. More attention to VR on consoles means more attention to Oculus Rift.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

If Sony aim to mainly sell Mopheus to PS4 owner, it will become nothing more than a glorified PS4 accessory. That isn't that they focus on at all. They want VR to be its own platform with separate software development.

You need a PS4 to use Morpheus, so I'm not sure who else you think they plan on selling to.

 

[Kysen]

I had a response typed up but Badwulf summed it up for me.
Morpheus just needs to do the same.

Yep, seems a few people in this thread believe that unless you have a high spec pc driving the device its a waste of time. The success of the Wii showed you don't need amazing graphics to sell loads. The core concept being good enough is all that is needed.

 

[joey_bone_bomb]

Can looking through a helmet replace the majesty of standing on the Grand Canyon and feeling the wind in your face and the feel of the rocks?

In the end, VR is an expensive way to trick your visual and audio processes in your brain, but it will never replace the real thing.

You're underestimating what VR can do.
Why should it be focusing on just replacing experiences rather than creating entirely new ones.
I'd love to take a flight overseas and experience standing on the Grand Canyon, but I also like the idea of putting on my VR device and taking a stroll on the moon, or the Mars, or deep below in the sea.
Try using your imagination.

 

[Chill Penguin]

Probably something else coming next. This isn't the end game. It's all about improvement and iteration. You shouldn't be so short sighted. The people that first made cellphones don't even matter now.

We don't judge videogames by Space War and Pong, do we?

I understand your point, but the inventor of the cell phone was Motorola. They might not be industry leaders but they're still quite relevant.

 

[stryke]

Correct me if I am mistaken but I don't think Sony has ever confirmed that Project Morpheus will even be usable on a PC as a consumer product.

It's all been PS4 only.

Hell, they still haven't released official drivers for the DS4, doesn't inspire much hope.

If it's PS4 only it's an instant "no buy" for me as I don't own a PS4, don't care about PS4 and have no plans to ever purchase a PS4.

Are you saying if Morpheus worked on PC you would consider it despite a much better alternative that would be available anyway?

 

[gamechanger87]

have you really given this much thought at all? I mean, last I checked that's precisely what VR exists to do. Put the user into a virtual environment. And when the environment corresponds to a real life location, okay it's not going to be the exact same but a good approximation can still work wonders. One of my favorite hypotheticals for future VR application is, imagine a high school lab fitted with enough Rifts for a classroom. Fuck a field trip, you know? Suddenly you can visit the Louvre with your class and teachers. An approximation, which is still so far beyond descriptions in a textbook or static pictures on the internet. Suddenly you can traverse Middle-Earth, explore Helms Deep. You can see Olympus fuckin Mons first person and get a far better idea of its scale (and the vastness and variety of our solar system/galaxy/universe/whatever) than simple descriptions could ever give. The idea of 'virtual tourism' is about as far from BS as something can get.

You're arguing that the experience is worthless if it doesn't replicate every single aspect of real life and that's just nonsense. I might as well stop reading textbooks to learn about anything but maths and code, ya?

I'm not saying its worthless. I'm saying its not the savior that everyone seems to think it may be. It's a cool experience and nothing more than that. People think this will revolutionize social experiences but I don't see it.

To use your example, the school shells out $300 a pop for a VR headset and everyone heads to the Louvre. How do they traverse it? Are they on one of those pads where you can walk or do they have a controller? How do they get closer to the pictures? How do they talk with their classmates about what they see and point stuff out?

The only way this gets done is if you put mics on everyone and give them fully modeled bodies and faces so you can see where people are pointing or who is talking. Is each person modeled to look like they do in real life or is it just an avatar with a name over it? Is it worth someone spending the time to do this?

How is this different from a click through Google Tour? You still aren't there, you can just now see the whole room? The resolution will be nowhere near as high as it would be if you were there. So what do you get out of it more than an expensive video tour?

So basically, anything short of a perfect holodeck experience is totally worthless?

Man, how did photography ever take off?

Do you swear off documentaries as well?

I'm not saying its worthless, I'm saying we will not be able to create a real life experience like people think we are. You will be on a glorified 3D tour and a glorified 3D environment with friends. Do they model the room you are sitting in? Do they model each person as they appear?

I don't understand your two other comments? Photography/Video took off because they enabled people to see and experience something when they aren't there. VR is essentially the same thing with more immersion but the drawbacks of both of those medias remain.

So? I live 3000 miles from all my family. The phone is 'good enough' for me, with occasional visits. VR would be even better.

Does the phone replace hanging out with a friend in person? Does it matter?

I get my deep sea fix from the Discovery channel. I'll never be there. Does it matter? I've never seen the Grand Canyon, but I'd go there on VR.

The phone and other means to communicate are a way to stay in touch, but it has not replaced true social interactions. If one of your family members was in distress, does a phone call work? Does a video call work? Does VR do anything different? Can it replace you putting your arm around them? No. In person works best.

My main point is that VR will not revolutionize social experiences. Until it can full replicate the sensations such as touch and smell and the emotional aspects of social experiences it will remain a cooler form of video.

I agree that VR may be a cooler way to go to the Grand Canyon then looking at photos, but it does not replace being there. Its an expensive way to go view something.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

More people need to read this, then come back and realize how social VR can be:

because every time I see "It's not social" I kinda giggle.

That's just a YA novel obsessed with the 80's and video games. That really doesn't prove anything.

 

[bj00rn_]

A banal piece of shit article without anything tangible, and based on the simple ignorant thought that design and tech means the same for both companies (and especially in the timeline of things). It doesn't.

 

[Freeman]

The best Move for Sony would be to make the Morpheus compatible to PC as well. If I had to chose between Morpheus and OR and only one of them was compatible with both PC and PS4 I wouldn't have to think about which one I would chose.

I know that typical Sony mentality will be to restrict Morpheus to PS4, a move that is just stupid due to the fact PS4 can easily sell it self but the same can't be said for Morpheus yet, having a presence on PC would be great for Morpheus.

Sony focus should be on offering a good enough experience while charging as little as possible (199$). PS4 is certainly capable of providing a good experience, even if the final Morpheus ends up with a resolution higher than 1080p a good compromise would be rendering at 1080p and upscaling like Carmack did with Gear VR. The PSMove is also a good solution for input.

I can easily see the Morpheus selling as good as Kinect did with the 360 and for a first experience with VR I think PS4 is much more approachable than PC.

 

[jroc74]

Can VR replace sitting with your friends in the same spot? Can it replace the other three senses that are used in a social setting? If you are in a social meeting place with a person of the opposite sex that you may be interested in, are there any biologic responses to their presence?


Can looking through a helmet replace the majesty of standing on the Grand Canyon and feeling the wind in your face and the feel of the rocks?

In the end, VR is an expensive way to trick your visual and audio processes in your brain, but it will never replace the real thing.

Just like talking on the phones doesnt replace talking to some in in person or seeing them in person. But we still do it, some more than others. Telephone use isnt going away anytime soon. And we have migrated to texting, chatting online ala Facebook, instant messenger apps, etc.

Same for sending pics to people. Its not the same as in person yet we do it on a regular basis.

You're underestimating what VR can do.
Why should it be focusing on just replacing experiences rather than creating entirely new ones.
I'd love to take a flight overseas and experience standing on the Grand Canyon, but I also like the idea of putting on my VR device and taking a stroll on the moon, or the Mars, or deep below in the sea.
Try using your imagination.

Thank you.

 

[gamechanger87]

Not that many years from now, this will be the silliest post.

I beg to differ. Can VR replace touch? How will you feel the wind gusting at the Grand Canyon?

 

[krypt0nian]

That's just a YA novel obsessed with the 80's and video games. That really doesn't prove anything.

Prove anything? WTF?

It demonstrates how social VR can and will be. You should read it before trying to demonize it as a YA novel (which it is not btw)

 

[Devilgunman]

You need a PS4 to use Morpheus, so I'm not sure who else you think they plan on selling to.

I was talking about people who currently own PS4. To make Morpheus a success, Sony need to convince people outside gaming, who has no desire to own a game console, to buy a PS4 for VR purpose, which I think it is very hard to accomplish.

 

[krypt0nian]

I beg to differ. Can VR replace touch? How will you feel the wind gusting at the Grand Canyon?

Now no. Eventually sure. Not that it matters. But you're on a tear so please continue. :lol

 

[gamechanger87]

Just like talking on the phones doesnt replace talking to some in in person or seeing them in person. But we still do it, some more than others. Telephone use isnt going away anytime soon. And we have migrated to texting, chatting online ala Facebook, instant messenger apps, etc.

Same for sending pics to people. Its not the same as in person yet we do it on a regular basis.



Thank you.

I completely agree. I just get the sense that a lot of people think its going to revolutionize social interactions, but there are so many aspects of social interaction that we don't even understand and thus there is no way to replicate it.

 

[krypt0nian]

I completely agree. I just get the sense that a lot of people think its going to revolutionize social interactions, but there are so many aspects of social interaction that we don't even understand and thus there is no way to replicate it.

It will create new paradigms. How is this hard to believe?

 

[gamechanger87]

Now no. Eventually sure. Not that it matters. But you're on a tear so please continue. :lol

Ok so explain to me how VR would replicate the feeling of picking up a rock in the Grand Canyon? How does it replicate the mass? Will someone come up with a product that instantly changes mass and transforms into what we want it to be to reflect what you are feeling?

 

[DyTonic]

What's so hard about VR.. Oculus is over hyped.

 

[krypt0nian]

Ok so explain to me how VR would replicate the feeling of picking up a rock in the Grand Canyon? How does it replicate the mass? Will someone come up with a product that instantly changes mass and transforms into what we want it to be to reflect what you are feeling?

If I knew that I'd patent it. That doesn't matter in any way. Have someone before radio explain how radio would work. LOL

You have the wrong username,

 

[gamechanger87]

It will create new paradigms. How is this hard to believe?

What is the new paradigm?

 

[autoduelist]

The phone and other means to communicate are a way to stay in touch, but it has not replaced true social interactions. If one of your family members was in distress, does a phone call work? Does a video call work? Does VR do anything different? Can it replace you putting your arm around them? No. In person works best.

My main point is that VR will not revolutionize social experiences. Until it can full replicate the sensations such as touch and smell and the emotional aspects of social experiences it will remain a cooler form of video.

I agree that VR may be a cooler way to go to the Grand Canyon then looking at photos, but it does not replace being there. Its an expensive way to go view something.

What? Who exactly is claiming it replaces social interactions and replaces visiting places? You're creating your own absurdly demanding goalposts and then telling us VR can't do it. Well, yeah. You're absolutely right.

And (for over a century) you couldn't see someone while talking on the phone. Heck, you can't even hear them that well all the time. It doesn't matter.

Something can 'revolutionize' something without replacing it.

 

[krypt0nian]

What is the new paradigm?

Again, ask people before the internet, how the internet would change things. You're bordering on ridiculous now.

 

[SerTapTap]

The phone and other means to communicate are a way to stay in touch, but it has not replaced true social interactions. If one of your family members was in distress, does a phone call work? Does a video call work? Does VR do anything different? Can it replace you putting your arm around them? No. In person works best.

There are dozens of people I know, some very important to me, who I have only met through text. I've had people tell me that my videos, just my voice laid over video games I'm playing, was an integral part of my week. People I've never met, people who have never seen my face, yet something I made and distributed through a video file meant that much to them. People are regularly talked down from suicide over the phone (suicide hotlines), family members, friends and lovers may only have a phone call to get in contact with their loved ones.

Yes, talking in person is great, but that does not make anything less than that completely irrelevant. See, the thing is tech doesn't have to completely replace the real thing, because it is substituting situations where the "real thing" is completely utterly impossible. I do not feel "lessened" by my text or voice only interactions with people because I would have never interacted in any way shape or form with them otherwise. I wouldn't have had a perfect conversation with them without technology. Without technology I would have nothing.

That you prefer talking in person absolutely does not diminish the extreme importance of text, voice or VR social experiences any more than an old man reading a newspaper diminishes the news I discover on twitter.

BTW, emulating touch (haptics) is in research as well. Long distance text used to be impossible. Then voice. Then images. Then videos. I have no doubt at some point touch will be the same, the only question is when.

 

[jroc74]

I beg to differ. Can VR replace touch? How will you feel the wind gusting at the Grand Canyon?

I dont see why it has to totally replace doing something in person. Telephone still comes to mind.

You said if a family member was in distress, does a phone call work? Yes...it does. It doesnt replace actually being there....but actually hearing a live voice does work. Hearing your concern does work.

Ask military ppl about phone calls and video calls.... When someone says" it was nice talking to you" or "It was nice to hear from you"....thats not them just blowing smoke up their ass. Thank goodness we dont have to send ppl letters all the time like years n years ago. But again, even writing a letter helps. Doesnt replace actually being there but it helps.

Like playing a football or driving game doesn't replace doing it in real life. Yet its done world wide on a daily basis with no complaints. Watching sports or racing, same thing.

Its not supposed to replace in person experiences...but gives us another medium to experience it on.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Ok so explain to me how VR would replicate the feeling of picking up a rock in the Grand Canyon? How does it replicate the mass? Will someone come up with a product that instantly changes mass and transforms into what we want it to be to reflect what you are feeling?

Are you expecting the tech to automatically mature to your exact description or will we realize that these steps are incremental with jumps at certain points.

 

[Freeman]

I beg to differ. Can VR replace touch? How will you feel the wind gusting at the Grand Canyon?

I never felt the wind gusting at the Grand Canyon is it much different than anywhere else? The thing is most people won't feel it regardless since not everybody have the money to travel there at least with VR you can "visit" places you otherwise wouldn't and places that don't even exist.

If VR works and it turns out to not be a compelling experience humanity will have failed creatively. I don't get how someone can like video games and want to see VR work.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

No VR is good with me. I hope Sony doesn't lose too much on this venture though. We need them around for the long haul. At least til the PS9!

 

[Bookoo]

I still have a doubt toward VR future, from both Morpheus and Oculus. I don't know how it can become commercially successful unless it is very affordable. As it is now, VR seems like a very niche product for a gadget nerd. Morpheus for example needs a PS4, PS eyes camera, and PS move for it to work. That is already $400+ investment excluding the price of the headset itself, which probably isn't going to be anywhere lower than $200. A sucker like me will buy those in a heartbeat but at that price it won't crack the mass market.

Mass market vr will most likely be on the mobile side.

An untethered experience is pretty neat and makes it easy to show off. I think social and telepresence is what will sell to the mainstream market.

 

[Seanspeed]

I'm not saying its worthless, I'm saying we will not be able to create a real life experience like people think we are. You will be on a glorified 3D tour and a glorified 3D environment with friends. Do they model the room you are sitting in? Do they model each person as they appear?

I don't understand your two other comments? Photography/Video took off because they enabled people to see and experience something when they aren't there. VR is essentially the same thing with more immersion but the drawbacks of both of those medias remain.

Who told you that you'd be able to 100% replicate real life experiences? I really think you're arguing against a stance that nobody has taken.

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

I feel like not enough people are addressing this quote, which is the biggest thing to consider in the matter

These are two very different strategic approaches to the market. The worrying thing is that they can't both be right. If Oculus is correct and VR still needs a lot of fine-tuning, prototyping and figuring out before it's ready for the market, then Sony is rushing in too quickly and risks seriously damaging the market potential of VR as a whole with an underwhelming product. This risk can't be overstated; if Morpheus launches first and it makes everyone seasick, or is uncomfortable to use for more than a short period of time, or simply doesn't impress people with its fidelity and immersion, then it could see VR being written off for another decade in spite of Oculus' best efforts.

Basically, boiled down to simple terms (and again, it's vastly simplified) Sony is going for a wiimote, while Oculus is going for a wm+/move as their starting points. So just look at how that turned out and what it meant for motion controls in gaming.

Yes, the tech doesn't need to be, and isn't expected to be, perfect at the start, but the question is "What's the best 'starting point' in terms of performance?" All the people saying it simply needs to work are missing the point that, this will be the first mainstream intro to VR.

If it's not quite at an "acceptable" level we could have a Wii situation where it starts off big, butbecomes nothing more than a novelty, and even with the introduction of better devices is still brushed off because of the bad first impression

 

[SerTapTap]

Mass market vr will most likely be on the mobile side.

An untethered experience is pretty neat and makes it easy to show off. I think social and telepresence is what will sell to the mainstream market.

"untethered" how though? I don't think mobility is very relevant for VR. You need a headset and an input method, and you need to be in a safe, sit-down place. It's not like a phone where it's always in your pocket taking up essentially zero space at all times and ready at a moment's notice.

The main advantage mobile can provide is just a screen and processor you already own, VR is probably mostly going to be a sit-down at home experience regardless.

 

[gamechanger87]

I dont see why it has to totally replace doing something in person. Telephone still comes to mind.

You said if a family member was in distress, does a phone call work? Yes...it does. It doesnt replace actually being there....but actually hearing a live voice does work. Hearing your concern does work.

Ask military ppl about phone calls and video calls.... When someone says" it was nice talking to you" or "It was nice to hear from you"....thats not them just blowing smoke up their ass.

I completely agree with both you and Sir Tap Tap in regards to this. I know how effective voice communication can be from personal family experience. VR will continue to move the needle, but I struggle to see the ultimate game changing aspects of it in the end.

My commentary is more around a lot of the noise that came out of the FB acquisition of OR.

 

[PuppetSlave]

Well people who are "evangelizing" Morpheus better hope general public hop on the train pretty much instantly, Sony have showed that they have no problem giving up on new tech if everything doesn't go like clock work. Look at Move, they dropped it like a bad habit after what, barely a year?

I want VR to be the great new thing but I have my doubts it will actually happen this time around.

 

[SerTapTap]

Well people who are "evangelizing" Morpheus better hope general public hop on the train pretty much instantly, Sony have showed that they have no problem giving up on new tech if everything doesn't go like clock work. Look at Move, they dropped it like a bad habit after what, barely a year?

I want VR to be the great new thing but I have my doubts it will actually happen this time around.

They've already said Move is better for VR and they're holding off on Move for morpheus/VR. PS4 supports move, too.

 

[krypt0nian]

They've already said Move is better for VR and they're holding off on Move for morpheus/VR. PS4 supports move, too.

It's almost as if the lights in the controllers are made for VR.

 

[Seanspeed]

"untethered" how though? I don't think mobility is very relevant for VR. You need a headset and an input method, and you need to be in a safe, sit-down place. It's not like a phone where it's always in your pocket taking up essentially zero space at all times and ready at a moment's notice.

The main advantage mobile can provide is just a screen and processor you already own, VR is probably mostly going to be a sit-down at home experience regardless.

Even a seated experience will be nice without wires.

And standing VR will come around.

 

[gamechanger87]

I never felt the wind gusting at the Grand Canyon is it much different than anywhere else? The thing is most people won't feel it regardless since not everybody have the money to travel there at least with VR you can "visit" places you otherwise wouldn't and places that don't even exist.

If VR works and it turns out to not be a compelling experience humanity will have failed creatively. I don't get how someone can like video games and want to see VR work.

I want VR to work in the sense of making a really cool video game. I think it can add a ton to the immersion on that end. Whenever I get a real gaming rig built up, I will be diving into OR.

I just think the recreation of making field trips and other real life encounters is far fetched.

 

[Solid Samus]

I'm not saying its worthless. I'm saying its not the savior that everyone seems to think it may be. It's a cool experience and nothing more than that. People think this will revolutionize social experiences but I don't see it.

To use your example, the school shells out $300 a pop for a VR headset and everyone heads to the Louvre. How do they traverse it? Are they on one of those pads where you can walk or do they have a controller? How do they get closer to the pictures? How do they talk with their classmates about what they see and point stuff out?

The only way this gets done is if you put mics on everyone and give them fully modeled bodies and faces so you can see where people are pointing or who is talking. Is each person modeled to look like they do in real life or is it just an avatar with a name over it? Is it worth someone spending the time to do this?

How is this different from a click through Google Tour? You still aren't there, you can just now see the whole room? The resolution will be nowhere near as high as it would be if you were there. So what do you get out of it more than an expensive video tour?

The experience the way I envision it is far more involving than something like a Google Tour because despite the valid barriers to complete immersion you bring up it still enables a far more thorough and immediately understandable experience than viewing stills. For the same reasons real life approximations of things, like models depicting famous landmarks, architectural designs, objects, representations of data, etc. exist, but on a larger scale. Through VR you get a truer sense of depth and place, as though you're looking at actual objects or representations of objects and can actually relate them with reference points in your mind. It's one thing to describe architecture and say "the ceiling in this room is x feet high", or to even view panoramic pictures of a setting on the internet, and another entirely to view even a decent approximation as though you're looking at it in person, with actual depth. it's not something to be understated. You don't need something like an Omni to make things like this possible and rewarding, either. I'd imagine that in an example like this the users (students) would traverse the simulation using keyboard to move their viewpoint and turn 180 degrees, and head tracking to change their perspective. They don't have to be represented as much more than floating ghosts so long as they can communicate verbally with one another and with their teacher (although this isn't a totally social example, and as I mentioned earlier when it comes to socializing in VR you do bring up valid points of concern). If you have something to point out, a virtual marker could be placed where you're looking at the press of a button, notifying your teacher. These are all things that can be addressed in intuitive manners that don't keep the experience as a whole from being elevated above other means of learning about that sort of material. Even if you just popped from room to room, from painting and sculpture to painting and sculpture, unable to move but able to turn your head and visualize things, that's still a step up.

The cost is a bit of an irrelevant detail to this hypothetical because #1 I guarantee you schools wouldn't be paying full price for these things, especially in bulk #2 it's a one time expense (plus licensing fees for applicable software etc) #3 you'd really only need enough for one classroom at a time, it's not like you'd need to outfit the entire school in these things.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Considering Oculus' partnership with Samsung and their work on Gear VR, I doubt that they're still concerned about this sort of thing, particularly after the Facebook deal. In the end, they're going to bring an experience that simply can't be denied, even if there are several attempts at VR that flop beforehand.

One and done.
Agree completely.

 

[FF Seraphim]

You can also bet that Sony will make Morpheus work on the PS5.

If they don't that would be hilariously bad for any future VR product on their end.

 

[Maniac]

Hardware-wise PS4 is hardly half-baked. Software features will be added later as has been standard since last gen. Also every single console before last gen did VASTLY less, so it's pretty weird to see people bitching that a console that does more than 95% of consoles in existence is "half baked" because it lacks some features it's predecessor got years into it's lifespan that few people even use.

I was indeed talking software wise. And, well, a lot of these features quite simply didn't exist before the years of last-gen. I mean, we're talking a decade if not more, so of course people will be bitching about a lack of common features - because our standards for tech increase, and they'll continue to do so. That's kind of the point, too. You move goalposts, you move standards.

Edit: Forgot to say; Calling it half-baked was also overly harsh and somewhat hyperbolic, but my point did more or less come across, if not in a slightly brash manner.

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

Are you saying if Morpheus worked on PC you would consider it despite a much better alternative that would be available anyway?

No, I'm saying that the article in the OP is talking about if Morpheus comes to market first it'll have serious repercussions on Oculus, I'm saying if it's a PS4 only device with no presence on PC it'll be a non factor.

If it does come to PC at a decent price I'd probably pick it up even with my plans to get Oculus once a consumer version is out.

 

[Freeman]

I feel like not enough people are addressing this quote, which is the biggest thing to consider in the matter



Basically, boiled down to simple terms (and again, it's vastly simplified) Sony is going for a wiimote, while Oculus is going for a wm+/move as their starting points. So just look at how that turned out and what it meant for motion controls in gaming.

Yes, the tech doesn't need to be, and isn't expected to be, perfect at the start, but the question is "What's the best 'starting point' in terms of performance?" All the people saying it simply needs to work are missing the point that, this will be the first mainstream intro to VR.

If it's not quite at an "acceptable" level we could have a Wii situation where it starts off big, butbecomes nothing more than a novelty, and even with the introduction of better devices is still brushed off because of the bad first impression

This keep being said about Sony, its like they are a bunch of incompetents.

When you look at it both the OR and Morpheus have very similar approaches. Sony doesn't do a open development like Oculus does and the last time they both revealed something at around the same time frame (Morpheus and Crystal cove), they were very similar products, OR being ahead in some aspects while Sony being ahead in others.

 

[flyinpiranha]

I beg to differ. Can VR replace touch? How will you feel the wind gusting at the Grand Canyon?

Ok so explain to me how VR would replicate the feeling of picking up a rock in the Grand Canyon? How does it replicate the mass? Will someone come up with a product that instantly changes mass and transforms into what we want it to be to reflect what you are feeling?

What is the new paradigm?

I completely agree with both you and Sir Tap Tap in regards to this. I know how effective voice communication can be from personal family experience. VR will continue to move the needle, but I struggle to see the ultimate game changing aspects of it in the end.

My commentary is more around a lot of the noise that came out of the FB acquisition of OR.

The idea has been around for ages, much like cellular phones, but the application of it in the past has been a far cry from what a garage developer did with the technology available today.

You're really not thinking long term. 10 years ago nobody had a smartphone. You're asking people to explain what the "next big idea" is going to be.

There's an answer to almost all of your questions in very crude-form technology right now. Haptic gloves, sensor-programmed fans, crazy treadmills and wingsuit tables. Is it perfect? Hell no, just like the first mobile phone was giant and plugged into a car battery.

I understand being reluctant to change, or even dismissive of it. But you seem to have blinders on just completely focusing on only what is out right now. This is bigger than that. Even with your example regarding museums and such, the scale is there, it just is. You duck, you move, you look around things. It's so different from anything I've experienced you can't explain it. Do you get sick watching Star Wars? No, most people don't ... but throw on a VR headset and the Battle of Endor demo and you'll get queasy from feeling like you're 'in' the ship. (motion sickness will definitely have to be something that is addressed).

I don't know man, just a dude like me can tell you that technology will increase. We all used to work on 640x480 monitors. I remember buying one and thinking HOLY SHIT! THIS IS AWESOME! ... now look what we have, flat screens, digital projectors ... a phone with a better resolution than most people's TVs ...

I don't want you to feel like people are ganging up on you. But your outlook on technology in general is extremely limited. It's like we're telling you that cars can drive on batteries and you're like "oh yeah, like that could happen, like a bunch of AA's just thrown in a car?". I honestly don't get how you dismiss all of this so much, especially just looking around at the way technology has advanced with everything. You can literally open up your phone and look at a map .. down to the exact house and street address of almost any place in the world ... that's how fast tech is moving.

 

[Seanspeed]

I just think the recreation of making field trips and other real life encounters is far fetched.

And we're back to square one with this argument. Its like the past half an hour didn't happen.

Does an experience have to replicate real life 100% to be worthwhile?

 

[Man]

I believe VR will have many opportunities to redeem itself even if this first wave doesn't take over the world.

• 1st Generation VR (Console, PC, Mobile)
• Pass-through-camera-feed VR (see real environment around you)
• Standing VR
• Wireless livingroom VR
• Presence achieved on Mobile VR
• Eye-tracking (*HUGE step forward*)
• Facebook in VR
• Glasses-sized VR
• AR+VR in sunglasses (20 years from now, as common as mobiles are today)