PeakPointMatrix
Member
Could you cite an actual source or two about the "already dropping interest" in VR?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Could the Pokemon Go success reduce the already dropping VR interest?
- Thread starter Genio88
- Start date
- Status
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Pokemon MMO in VR would make more money than Go could ever hope to.
Just because Nintendo hasn't hopped on the VR train yet doesn't make it "enemy technology".
Just because Nintendo hasn't hopped on the VR train yet doesn't make it "enemy technology".
xenorevlis
Member
Okay Google PR, lol, sleek and stylish? It's this thick plastic rod along one side of your face. I'm not saying Holo Lens is any better (it looks more future, but is still not stylish).Yes, but would you want to? Google glass was sleek, stylish, and minimalist, and people still thought it was terrible. You think people would wear hololens in public?
THESE are way more "sleek" and "stylish" since they exist within actual various types of glasses.
(though yes, they work with your phone.. so maybe also with Pokemon Go?
)He could but then the OP topic wouldn't be a loaded question.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
VR will remain a niche in the gaming market.
perfectchaos007
Member
I just want to immerse myself in a world of pokemon and never come back
Snkfanatic
Banned
Uhh let's not get hasty here. One is a F2P on a immensely used and accessible platform. The other, for now at least, will require a hefty investment.
what the fuck is a loaded question? i have read it several times now and i have no idea
That's crazy talk. Everyone has phones. Nobody has VR.
Absolutely.
I see where you are going with this thread. I'm guessing you are asking if an AR game like Pokemon Go will siphon the interest of an untapped market that was supposed to be wowed by VR.
Both markets are very different and AR has its first "MUST USE Experience" whereas I'm sure once VR gets that one game, people will be interested to experience it. VR does have a ways to go in marketing and the fact that I'm seeing a huge split in their market brewing between people that want gigantic goggles mimicking a 360 degree TV with a controller and those that want a 360 degree motion based experience. Most casual gamers I've seen wowed by VR love the motion control experience, most vocal VR proponents I seen argue for controller based movement.
Personally, I'm much more curious at the possibilities of AR to be honest.
Both markets are very different and AR has its first "MUST USE Experience" whereas I'm sure once VR gets that one game, people will be interested to experience it. VR does have a ways to go in marketing and the fact that I'm seeing a huge split in their market brewing between people that want gigantic goggles mimicking a 360 degree TV with a controller and those that want a 360 degree motion based experience. Most casual gamers I've seen wowed by VR love the motion control experience, most vocal VR proponents I seen argue for controller based movement.
Personally, I'm much more curious at the possibilities of AR to be honest.
GuitarAtomik
Member
You could replace "VR" with "consoles" in the thread title and it would make just as little sense. Go's AR implementation has just about nothing to do with it's success beyond giving you funny pictures to post.
I would like to have seen where the investment dollars have been moving over the last week or so since the Pokemon Go launch.
I'm pretty sure that lot's of people saw VR as a stepping stone to [see-through] AR (Basically an ideal see-through AR device gets VR for free). However the current VR paradigm (since it takes over the users FOV) has needed to throw a of resources and computing power to achieve the minimal levels of 'presence' to make sure that the mainstream audiences won't get sick.
With devices which use pass-through AR (camera feed on a display with an overlay) it seems like the mainstream is more accepting of graphical glitches, low fidelity (it's on the 3DS) and incorrect placement of objects (compare lighthouse tracking to GPS), because they are still rooted in the real world and are looking through a device in their hands.
We will have to see what the mainstream deems as the minimal requirements for see-through AR in the future, as technologies such as positional tracking, environmental mapping and object identification become more necessary for an AR device that is worn on the head.
I'm pretty sure that lot's of people saw VR as a stepping stone to [see-through] AR (Basically an ideal see-through AR device gets VR for free). However the current VR paradigm (since it takes over the users FOV) has needed to throw a of resources and computing power to achieve the minimal levels of 'presence' to make sure that the mainstream audiences won't get sick.
With devices which use pass-through AR (camera feed on a display with an overlay) it seems like the mainstream is more accepting of graphical glitches, low fidelity (it's on the 3DS) and incorrect placement of objects (compare lighthouse tracking to GPS), because they are still rooted in the real world and are looking through a device in their hands.
We will have to see what the mainstream deems as the minimal requirements for see-through AR in the future, as technologies such as positional tracking, environmental mapping and object identification become more necessary for an AR device that is worn on the head.
It's a question that contains its own unjustified assumptions.
"When did you stop beating your wife" is the classic example.
In the case of the OP topic, the unjustified assumption is "interest is already dropping in VR".
UncleSporky
Member
Is there a name for the phenomenon when you feel like you're hearing and seeing something everywhere and get sick of it, and then slowly people start talking about other stuff and other topics come into the limelight, and you think to yourself "heh they thought that thing was gonna be a big deal and now look, nobody's even talking about it anymore, it was a wet fart in the end."
When in actuality, you weren't the market, you didn't keep appraised of developments in that space, you're not in the communities where people are excitedly watching things pick up steam...absence of in-your-face discussion isn't lack of popularity, but you interpret it that way.
Is there a word for that?
Spiral Insanity
Banned
Another one of these pieces. Just wanting to generate clicks I guess? This doesn't make any sense.
Hellsing321
Member
Snapchat has done more for AR than Pokemon Go.
Orakio Rob
Member
VR gets you inside, AR gets the game outside.
I'm a married man with a baby and can't dive so deep into a game, so I'm more excited about AR.
I'm a married man with a baby and can't dive so deep into a game, so I'm more excited about AR.
It is unlikely that the worst headset by a considerable margin (it was the headset everyone at GDC told me wasn't worth trying) will solve the problems facing VR right now (it just doesn't have any killer apps).
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Neither does Vive imo, even with room scale and tracked controllers. Namely due to space limitations of the average consumer. Until you solve for that it will always be niche of a niche and has no room in the same conversation as a mobile phenom like Go. I say this as a Vive user. Also, what a level-headed assessment of psvr for yourself, haven't even demoed it xD
AR and VR will converge to the same point eventually I think. They will be rendered by a common device. I do think AR has more potential for wider acceptance and success in the near future though as it's likely to be available in a desirable form factor earlier and has less of a social stigma attached to it. I don't know which is easier to work with for content developers though. I imagine AR maybe more difficult for complex interactive experiences as it requires complex video/image processing which allow manipulation/interaction with while maintaining coherence with the real physical objects versus creating a completely 'digital' world with 'digital' objects with its own set of rules of interaction in VR which maybe easier to manage.
I don't know if Pokemon Go is indicative of any of this however. I'm just rambling...
I don't know if Pokemon Go is indicative of any of this however. I'm just rambling...
the biggest player? hahahaha
Pokémon Go is AR.. if anything, this is going to give things like Hololens more interest imo.
So you're saying that Sony having the cheapest and most consumer friendly VR unit and had basically the hopes and dreams of VR taking off for the mainstream as not the biggest player? Ok keep laughing champ.
Yeah, as if the cheapest hw with the best games (or games period) could sell the most. Hahahahaha.
Ha.
Also, and Im saying that as a Pokémon Go lover, can we stop pretending its not a shit game?
Cheapest. How much it is again?
Sangetsu-II
Member
PSVR hasn't come out yet so no, by the time it releases Pokemon GO should be old news.
Your arguments against it is that someone told someone not to try it, and he didn't. So its true.
Got it.
Chip N Chance
Member
Something as big as Pokemon Go is really does put a wrench in the spokes of the already little/petering excitement of VR headsets. Sure they're not really related, but its still the biggest gaming news to hit since the Wii was released. By the time VR becomes the success that gaming media was so sure it was to become, the headsets that are released already will be well obsolete.
Just_myles
Member
It adds to the mixed reality conversation for sure. So when something like magic leap goes commercial, a great way to explain it is draw comparison's to Pokemon Go, but with no phone.
Also VRs problem is there is no killer app. Simple as that. I have tried all VR platforms and yes, PC experience with Vive and the OR are the best but, who the hell wants a Windows PC?
So mobile really needs to take off and these mobile GPUs need to step their game up.
Also VRs problem is there is no killer app. Simple as that. I have tried all VR platforms and yes, PC experience with Vive and the OR are the best but, who the hell wants a Windows PC?
So mobile really needs to take off and these mobile GPUs need to step their game up.
Ninja Scooter
Member
What a weird, random and unsupported comparison to make. VR's biggest "problem" is that leading up to its release some people were expecting it to be the next big thing, the next mobile or the next Wii, while sensible people kept reitering that entry level VR is very much a niche, enthusiast product that is going to need time to grow and evolve. So what happens? VR launches. Doesn't set the world on fire and people are left wondering what happened. There isn't a lot of intersect right now between the people playing Pokemon Go, a free app targeted as super casuals, lapsed gamers and kids, and VR.
Just_myles
Member
Ninja Scooter said:
Precisely. But for VR though.
The VR headset releases, as an outsider, seem to have been a nightmare. They released with little fan fare because of production issues, meaning limited supply, and because of that there was no advertising push to tell the public VR was here. The headsets just popped into existence one day. I'm sure plenty of people don't know that they are purchasable.
InsaneTiger
Member
Ninja Scooter
Member
The people who would be willing to purchase them know they are purchasable. They don't need to run ads for them. The rest of the market has no interest right now and rightfully so. VR in its current state not some impulse buy that Joe Schmoe grabs at WalMart. VR as a consumer product and platform is prenatal right now. The players involved know this, which is why the launches have been relatively low key by videogame hardware standards. Nobody had any aspirations of the Vive of the Rift being the next Kinect. The goal with these launches was to get the headsets in the hands of enthusiasts and designers so that the platform could eventually grow into something casuals will want.
Simbabbad
Member
It makes sense, though. Not directly comparing the two, but observing that everything that makes Pokémon GO a success is the exact opposite of VR. VR will never catch on because people don't want to be even more self centred and cut from reality, they want (even need) less of it.
VR is a virtual fad from the 90's, it was outdated even before it was technically possible.
Salty Rice
Member
Could the Apple success reduce the already dropping Orange interest?
Ninja Scooter
Member
People spend ever waking minute with their faces stuck to their phones, even in social spaces. Society is cut off from reality now more than ever. When people are going to bars and restaurants and doing nothing but staring at their phones, having a screen stuck to your face doesn't seem like all that much of a stretch.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Fancyarcher
Member
Nah, don't see it having any affect on it really.
So one person was told it was the worst headset and he didn't try it. Yup, it's total shit. Sony should just cancel the whole thing right now.
$399 with just the headset and game. $499 with the headset, game and move controllers. Rift is $599 and Oculus is $799. It's the cheapest.
Simbabbad
Member
And that's why Pokémon GO is a success, people hate this situation, and GO is at the same time taking profit from it and taking people out of it to interact with the real world.
VR is the exact opposite of what people perceive as healthy, they don't want more of it. It'll never catch on, just like it was obvious from the start the Google glasses would never catch on.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Lol they hate this situation because they use a app that still requires them to be glued to their cell phones? To the point where people are falling off cliffs while playing? People need to slow their roll on Pokemon Go like its enciting some cultural revolution or something. It's being used by the same people that are still glued to their Facebook/snapchat/Instagram/twitters and will continue to do so once Pokemon has come and gone. It's feeding the same audience in the same ways. Trying to equate the success of Pokemon Go as some sort of backlash to social networks and the awlays-connected society is silly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked