But that's the thing, VR did suck two decades ago -- and that's the reason for it not selling, not the basic concept. The state things are in now is not even comparable to what we had back then. People will crave good VR when they see it. I have seen it. You, on the other hand, are making an enormous leap of faith (presumably not having tried any of the new HMDs being discussed in this thread).
I already did: It's additional hardware, it's something you can only enjoy by yourself, and you're wasting a lot of performance rendering peripheral shit. Those are all systemic problems, inherent issues of VR. It's totally awesome in a gimmicky kinda way, but it's inefficient and has very little to no real mass market appeal.
No, it was actually exactly the same. The shit back then had no latency because it used cables, and it did have head tracking. And it was extremely high resolution compared to home PCs. You evidently never tried that shit.
Your reading comprehension sucks. I did try them, and I tried the old ones (unlike anybody else in this thread it seems). That's why I say the new systems, while certainly better, don't fix the actual issues.
This is a pure and absolute factual error. You seem to completely misunderstand the fundamental causes of motion-to-photon latency and how important that number is to the VR experience in general.
That's it? "Wasting performance" is perhaps the most negligible systemic fault I've ever heard of. Porn is arguably wasting a lot of performance, but that premise is evidently not compelling enough to sway a whole lot of people to stop watching it. I hope you're donating your spare cycles to Folding@home, lest you be hypocritical.
Okay, my apologies. So, your arguments boil down to immaterial concerns and cosmetics, which makes your position even more baffling.
Are you talking about units available to consumers back in the 90's (sub-$1000 range), or some professional level stuff? Because I still have my issue of PC Gamer where they talk about all the VR headsets from back in the day, and I recall them mentioning the resolution was sad compared to normal monitors.
That is actually a good point. We're all nerds who have waited for VR to happen all our lives, but the Rift could be a hard sell to the general public, at least initially. With that said, I think the comparison to 3D is a false equivalency. It was a gimmicky technology driven mostly by content creators and hardware vendors, not something with an innately useful function. With VR, though, we can already see SO many possibilities in so many different fields, I can't really see it "failing" in the general sense. Sure, it may catch on relatively slowly, but that's what the enthusiast market is for -- to fill the gap until the really useful applications become available.
Oh man, Shadow of the Colossus, fuck.
Yeah, I didn't mean the game, I mean walking around that environment watching them.
This deserves to be quoted. It really shows how absurd it is to even think of comparing early 90s VR to circa 2014 VR. But it's so obvious, how could anyone not realize it? Do people who use "VR sucked back in the 90s" as an argument understand that we've had an over six orders of magnitude increase in computing power since? Not to mention the cost of MEMS, etc. Did consumer affordable MEMS even exist before the Wii? Probably not.
Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.
VR will become mainstream after Valve. So basically whenever Sony and MS play catch up during the latter half of the ps4/xbone era.
Argument A: You have to be alone to use VR!
Just to put your money where your mouth is, how many copies do you expect CV1 to sell? I'd wager it'll easily do one million+ and would consider that a relative success.
I know, I've been depressed since I had the idea actually.
That's... not what I was saying. Sure, you do look silly, and you can't really share the experience with anybody else (not the same as having to be alone), but those aren't my main points. Those are smaller issues that will hinder widespread adoption, but not the main problems.
So you specifically say it wasn't a price issues before, but now its the main issue.
Feep said:
yet people crawl over eachother to buy stupid 600+ dollar phones with a day's worth of battery life to do some 4th rate browsing and play some whale centric ungames on it , hell even your tag suggest you are an acolyte of that fad
After all, in the end what really matters is that it must be specifically Sony VR to be good.
