Why not? Can we name any other accessory to a gaming console that has become commonplace and stuck around for long enough? Not saying VR cannot do it (false past equivocation) but I am saying that it doesn't have history on its side.
It's not needed but there's some nice software opportunities in Valves case. When you approach obstacles or walls then these will fade into your view (wireframe or point-cloud-like through Lighthouse calculations). With video-pass-through you could also simultaneously fade in the real video image of this (at least if it's in front).
It's not an accessory. VR is a new medium. It happens to work as an accessory, and can be implemented into familiar game genres, but this is not how Valve or Oculus are demonstrating it, nor are they recommending that developers should treat it as one.
Ah ok. In that case you're describing how you can already play something like Skyrim in VR, and it's awful, imo. Some people with a good sense of balance and strong stomachs can do it, but I don't think it's something that would be widely accepted. I'm more comfortable sitting down and just using a bit of head rotation to look around and doing everything else the traditional gamepad way, but even that is unpleasant to some extent. Combining real movement like dodging and jumping and then doing everything else with a controller is going to make the disconnection with your virtual body seem worse rather than better. You mention mechs - this is the only way it starts to feel comfortable, as you have a stationary cockpit in front of you and it makes sense. Being able to walk about a bit in the mech only makes sense if the VR experience represents walking about in a mech.
I'm not surprised at all. VR isn't quite as genre-limited as many people think.
This is another thing i don't get. Why people think it works only for first person games?
I can see where people would just assume 'first person'. That is what first comes to mind when people think about virtual reality. But that's one of the problems - a lot of people don't really know much about the tech or how it works. They don't spend time to think about it or look into it, they just make a quick, snap judgement based on simplistic preconceptions. I mean, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that VR would be great for 3rd person stuff, either. But I also didn't just blindly assume what it could or couldn't do.
It seems to be really pushing the boundaries of the definition of a camera. As I understand it, there are a few types of photocell, and ones that are typically used to detect IR light are resistors. A camera involves images. An IR camera involves images (weird looking images, but images all the same). The Vive's photocells are there to detect a change in resistance to calculate headset position via timing. There is no image involved.
https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/574328634200084481
But VR was talked about a lot at the end of the 80's and even was part of the main stream culture of the 90's. There have been practical uses for it decades ago in the military and science fields. By this time, one would expect the general public be more familiar and receptive of this medium.
Ah ok. In that case you're describing how you can already play something like Skyrim in VR, and it's awful, imo. Some people with a good sense of balance and strong stomachs can do it, but I don't think it's something that would be widely accepted. I'm more comfortable sitting down and just using a bit of head rotation to look around and doing everything else the traditional gamepad way, but even that is unpleasant to some extent. Combining real movement like dodging and jumping and then doing everything else with a controller is going to make the disconnection with your virtual body seem worse rather than better. You mention mechs - this is the only way it starts to feel comfortable, as you have a stationary cockpit in front of you and it makes sense. Being able to walk about a bit in the mech only makes sense if the VR experience represents walking about in a mech.
