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.
Imagine if the worst hardware that still offered a new and unique way to play sold better than anything else.
-
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
Imagine if the worst hardware that still offered a new and unique way to play sold better than anything else.
Pokémon GO is way way more of a location-based game than AR. For the type of AR usage it has, I don't think it's a big push at all.
No people that I know/played with actually used the AR mode besides the first few times or just to take a novelty picture at a specific location.
No people that I know/played with actually used the AR mode besides the first few times or just to take a novelty picture at a specific location.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Yeah, but the issue is that AR can push into VR sales.
XOMTOR
Member
I know the comparison is shaky at best but I like the AR in Pokemon Go and am much more interested in AR's potential in the near term. VR I just have no interest in. Well maybe someday in the far, far future when we can plug in Matrix style; anything short of that is not virtual reality to me.
google cardboard and samsung gear vr are much cheaper, the latter has minecraft vr too
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Sure, gear is cheap if you have the several hundred dollar smartphone to go along with it
It's obvious it was meant as the cheapest of the gaming dedicated headsets on offer.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Samsung Gear VR and Google Cardboard is significantly cheaper than PSVR.
Sure, gear is cheap if you have the several hundred dollar smartphone to go along with it
It's obvious it was meant as the cheapest of the gaming dedicated headsets on offer.
Well PSVR requires a PS4 that cost several hundred of dollars.
Cheaper, but still requires an upfront cost 100x more than the cheapest IAP in Pokemon Go. And really, without the ability to move your head or hands in 3D, Gear VR can only be a visual enhancement, like AR is in Pokemon Go.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Forest for the trees with these semantics, no one is buying a Gear or a bloody cardboard (which is dog shit tier vr that barely fits the description) primarily for gaming, most people even on gaf use it as a media device (read: porn). Again, out of the big three, psvr is the cheapest, and amongst the gaming demographic it's obvious that's where it will spread the easiest.
VR (On consoles) will be like Kinect. Strong sales off the get go but interest will fade over time as developers fail to create full sized games out of it. We will see some cool uses for it but nothing that sets the world on fire.
On PC I expect VR will be really popular with sim enthusiasts but that's about it.
And before anyone asks I have owned both the Rift and the Vive.
On PC I expect VR will be really popular with sim enthusiasts but that's about it.
And before anyone asks I have owned both the Rift and the Vive.
You mean $349? Which is still the lowest barrier of entry of anything excluding mobile which requires the purchase of a phone which is several hundred $$$ itself? You knew what I meant.
vasametropolis
Member
AR is a thousand times more practical. It's weird comparing it to VR because I feel like they are two very different animals. Each will have their place, but AR has way more potential in every day life.
Sangetsu-II
Member
Doesn't a Samsung Galaxy 7 or any Android Device with similar specs cost $399-$699 compared to a $350 PS4?
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Samsung Gear VR cost $100 and PSVR cost $400.
A cheap Gear VR set up will cost $500 while a PSVR set up will cost $750 , if we go by your calculation.
Sangetsu-II
Member
Gear VR only works Galaxy S7 | S7 edge, Note5, S6, and S6 edge.
The $399 is actually for a capable phone that will run okay and not make you nauseous and that only works with cheap Chinese headsets until Google Daydream comes out.
You comparing apple and oranges here. It's the cheapest true VR headset and has better support on it.
You also fail to understand that there are more than 40m PS4 owners who only have to buy the $400 headset so it is cheaper.
Totally agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.
CosmicQueso
Member
It might flip development dollars from VR to AR.
There's now a benchmark for success in AR that is still missing from VR.
For risk averse pubs and devs, makes the decision to go AR more appealing.
There's now a benchmark for success in AR that is still missing from VR.
For risk averse pubs and devs, makes the decision to go AR more appealing.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
These 5 phone models combined easily dwarf that 40m though. And why will that not count as true headset?
Sangetsu-II
Member
No motion controllers like the 3 major headsets, makes for 25% of games not making it to the platform.
Heck you are either stuck with a touchpad on the side of the headset or a cheap bluetooth controller.
The cheapest VR headset is OSVR HDK 1.4, which is $299. The second cheapest will be OSVR HDK2, which will match the resolution of the Rift and Vive, at $399.
Bingo. It's not a "one or the other" equation. There exists and will be room for both to succeed at their individual niche.
Honestly since PokemonGO has come out my interest in VR has waned. I have a PSVR pre-ordered and have tried it at the Best Buy demos. I probably only use the AR on Pokemon GO like 10% of the time but it's kind of hit home that I don't want to sit on my couch with a visor on and disappear from the world. The apps so far for VR are underwhelming and the entry price is extremely high. Why pay $500 to leave reality when I can walk around my city that has become a living fantasy world. Edit: shit $500.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Is the OP drunk?
Strangelove77
Member
I don't think those two things are connected.
Though personally I have absolutely no faith in current 3D headset offerings becoming the norm. I think they'll fail to catch on.
Maybe in another decade or two it'll get to where it needs to be.
Though personally I have absolutely no faith in current 3D headset offerings becoming the norm. I think they'll fail to catch on.
Maybe in another decade or two it'll get to where it needs to be.
Known VR cynic.
A resounding yes. AR implemented in Pokemon is more social, engaging, and appealing than the cold, dark, antisocial confines of PSVR.
America is full of ADHD-like peeps or those who just have to multitask (ie. use phone while watching TV), so I can't see many who can play VR for more than 15 minutes at a time.
America is full of ADHD-like peeps or those who just have to multitask (ie. use phone while watching TV), so I can't see many who can play VR for more than 15 minutes at a time.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
while it doesn't have motion controller yet (since Samsung has debuted the Rink prototype for it), it compensate by being mobile. I am sure Sony will love to have their PSVR untethered to a PS console in the future many years later.
It is so frustrating that most people think VR begins and ends at video games.
It can do so many more interesting things.
Yes, lets construct the same "basement dweller" narrative for VR that people used to have for video games.
VR is a very social experience if you want it to be. It's certainly no more anti-social than reading a book or playing a single player games.
But there are a lot of social apps and games like Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes.
As someone with ADHD, I actually like VR because it KEEPS me focused on one thing. I watch a lot of movies in the virtual theater because it keeps me completely immersed in the film and I can't be tempted to look at my phone.
---
Pokemon GO is undoubtably successful, but it will die out as with any craze. The app itself is very shallow. Something else will come along.
It can do so many more interesting things.
Yes, lets construct the same "basement dweller" narrative for VR that people used to have for video games.
VR is a very social experience if you want it to be. It's certainly no more anti-social than reading a book or playing a single player games.
But there are a lot of social apps and games like Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes.
As someone with ADHD, I actually like VR because it KEEPS me focused on one thing. I watch a lot of movies in the virtual theater because it keeps me completely immersed in the film and I can't be tempted to look at my phone.
---
Pokemon GO is undoubtably successful, but it will die out as with any craze. The app itself is very shallow. Something else will come along.
Sorry OP, your premise is pretty flimsy:
Clearly PoGo is a runaway success, but the amount of kneejerk comparisons I see is annoying.
- Making broad industry assumptions based on Pokemon Go after 2 weeks is premature
- Pokemon Go is a completely different experience than VR
- Your assumption that interest in VR is dropping sounds anecdotal (unless you have data) and I'd argue interest is rising leading into PSVR release and holiday season.
- Google Glass flopped and Hololens currently is a $3K dev device...the former may never see a re-release and the latter is being billed as a business device more than anything.
Clearly PoGo is a runaway success, but the amount of kneejerk comparisons I see is annoying.
That makes this entire premise that much easier to ignore lol.
The Hermit
Member
this made me laugh more than it should
People are already salty that AR found a killer app before VR.
AR was always going to be cheaper to implement with existing tech that people have. It also has more practical usage than VR. I mean, how much work is it not to just get something to look like real, and react like you expect, but to feel like you expect? Meanwhile, the world already exists around you in AR. You don't have to develop teleporting methods of transportation so you don't get sick or anything like that.
The industry has been doing the proper baby steps with motion controls, 3D, and AR but VR is trying to leap frog it all and the reality is that it can be cool, but dev kits have been in developers hands for several years now and the expected barebores "VR" experience is still undercooked.
Say what you want about Pokémon Go's AR functionality, it's using the tech in an engaging way, within it's limitations. It's not all about the camera either, just overlaying Pokestops and Gyms in real locations adds another layer that....augments reality. Overlaying elements over a real world locations are easier than developing software that accurately detects geometry and surfaces from a camera alone.
At the very least, it finally shows people the potential of AR in a way that I don't think people really got before, and the social aspect has just made it even more of a phenomenon. By contrast, VR has had a much harder time to grab a hold of people since they have to try it for themselves to see the value and even then it's very expensive and there is no killer app.
AR was always going to be cheaper to implement with existing tech that people have. It also has more practical usage than VR. I mean, how much work is it not to just get something to look like real, and react like you expect, but to feel like you expect? Meanwhile, the world already exists around you in AR. You don't have to develop teleporting methods of transportation so you don't get sick or anything like that.
The industry has been doing the proper baby steps with motion controls, 3D, and AR but VR is trying to leap frog it all and the reality is that it can be cool, but dev kits have been in developers hands for several years now and the expected barebores "VR" experience is still undercooked.
Say what you want about Pokémon Go's AR functionality, it's using the tech in an engaging way, within it's limitations. It's not all about the camera either, just overlaying Pokestops and Gyms in real locations adds another layer that....augments reality. Overlaying elements over a real world locations are easier than developing software that accurately detects geometry and surfaces from a camera alone.
At the very least, it finally shows people the potential of AR in a way that I don't think people really got before, and the social aspect has just made it even more of a phenomenon. By contrast, VR has had a much harder time to grab a hold of people since they have to try it for themselves to see the value and even then it's very expensive and there is no killer app.
Why do people keep thinking that AR is the important part of Pokemon Go? Do you honestly think that the only thing that makes this app popular is that people can see a pokemon superimposed on their camera screen? I'm sure if it had zero camera integration it would be just as popular.
Unless they put Pokemon in space.
No people are over estimating Pokemons Go use as a AR killer app. Pokemon Go is a cool thing but not because of the AR.
It seems like people are confused about AR and VR as overarching categories!
AR as seen in pokemon go doesn't require buying a peripheral which would compete with VR headsets, unlike the AR that people have suggested in the past could be competing with VR (stuff like hololens). AR approaches as seen in pokemon go have existed for years. There's nothing wildly new about the tech, and it's completely different from the tech that is required for something like hololens. It's a no brainer that the software using established AR tech that's been around for many years is going to be more evolved and more successful at this point than VR tech which just launched in the past few months.
What's not clear is why they're competing, any more than any other two video games on any other platforms are competing. Has anyone made a convincing argument for why old AR experiences and VR stuff just hitting the scene are competing with each other any more than they're both competing with, say, the latest call of duty?
AR as seen in pokemon go doesn't require buying a peripheral which would compete with VR headsets, unlike the AR that people have suggested in the past could be competing with VR (stuff like hololens). AR approaches as seen in pokemon go have existed for years. There's nothing wildly new about the tech, and it's completely different from the tech that is required for something like hololens. It's a no brainer that the software using established AR tech that's been around for many years is going to be more evolved and more successful at this point than VR tech which just launched in the past few months.
What's not clear is why they're competing, any more than any other two video games on any other platforms are competing. Has anyone made a convincing argument for why old AR experiences and VR stuff just hitting the scene are competing with each other any more than they're both competing with, say, the latest call of duty?
It's probably more the revelation that people are having that it's more fun to be outside enjoying a video game that enhances the (crappy in my case) city they live in versus sitting inside with a headset on and ignoring everything (including wives) in the process. Restricting Augmented Reality to visuals is doing the game a disservice with what it's accomplished with the geocaching and single source servers (everyone in the city encountering the same Pokemon at the same time). VR will be neat, but it can't replace catching a Charizard with 30 other people at your local park.
StoppedInTracks
Member
Of course it will.
Would you rather:
1) sit at home with a freaking helmet on your head separated from other people (even your own family)
or
2) go outside and do fun stuff with other people as catching Pokemons in Starbucks/ McD/ Central Park whatever?
Guess what majority of people will pick.
It's really funny how AR - that requires 1/100 of the processing power needed for VR - beat VR to the punch.
Would you rather:
1) sit at home with a freaking helmet on your head separated from other people (even your own family)
or
2) go outside and do fun stuff with other people as catching Pokemons in Starbucks/ McD/ Central Park whatever?
Guess what majority of people will pick.
It's really funny how AR - that requires 1/100 of the processing power needed for VR - beat VR to the punch.
Your point can be made about pokemon go versus every other video game in history, particularly single player games.
Playing a game by yourself can be neat, but it can't replace catching a Charizard with 30 other people at your local park.
In the end, it will be up to personal taste whether playing pokemon go is a better time investment than any single player game ever made.
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
Your comment can basically be shaved down to this. Trust that there will be plenty of people who would rather play video games than run around catching pokemans.
I'd say I'm a fairly social person but I honestly feel embarrassed playing Pokemon Go in public. Even seeing other people playing, I still feel ashamed. The app requires too much looking directly at the phone for my liking, wish it had more streetpass-like ideas.
Edit: obviously the app is insanely popular nonetheless, I just don't think the social aspect of it will make everyone disinterested in VR.
I think it's much more likely that Pokemon Go and AR is a fad than VR.
When I first used VR the experience was incredibly exciting and I could immediately think of a wide range of possibilities for the tech, not only in games but in other areas. The tech has only gotten better and better since then. When it truly does become accessibly cheap I think it'll become pretty mainstream. In games I think it'll be extremely popular.
In contrast I've found Pokemon Go to be pretty dull and I'm actually pretty surprised by how popular it is. I work in mobile games and in the past I've worked on location based games that were very similar to Pokemon Go. While working on location based games my team struggled to come up with gameplay concepts that worked well and we found the location based concept to be very constraining designwise. I was disappointed to find that Pokemon Go failed to solve any of the game design problems that we ourselves encountered. I would be surprised if Pokemon Go succeeds beyond the initial fad state, but it is Pokemon, and people around the world love the series so that is a huge help.
I am deeply skeptical that any AR location based game without the Pokemon license could do so well.
When I first used VR the experience was incredibly exciting and I could immediately think of a wide range of possibilities for the tech, not only in games but in other areas. The tech has only gotten better and better since then. When it truly does become accessibly cheap I think it'll become pretty mainstream. In games I think it'll be extremely popular.
In contrast I've found Pokemon Go to be pretty dull and I'm actually pretty surprised by how popular it is. I work in mobile games and in the past I've worked on location based games that were very similar to Pokemon Go. While working on location based games my team struggled to come up with gameplay concepts that worked well and we found the location based concept to be very constraining designwise. I was disappointed to find that Pokemon Go failed to solve any of the game design problems that we ourselves encountered. I would be surprised if Pokemon Go succeeds beyond the initial fad state, but it is Pokemon, and people around the world love the series so that is a huge help.
I am deeply skeptical that any AR location based game without the Pokemon license could do so well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked