Support NeoGAF

[gifgaf]

I'm putting the delusional ear pluggers on ignore so I won't be responding anymore, but one final statement I want to make in this thread: VR isn't even a fad. To be a fad, you actually have to be popular in the first place. It's never been popular enough to be a fad. The original Wii was a fad.

VR isn't even a blip on the radar and another 21st century John Carmack disaster. It'll probably be 50 years before there's any tech or software that even begins to line up with people's expectations for what it should be.

Enjoy giving Facebook money, VR shills. I'm out.

"I have no facts to backup my claims so i'll pretend I'm going to take the high road, put my fingers in my ears and shout LALALALA then run away from an argument I cant win"

 

[Romulus]

Seems like every few weeks there's someone on neogaf that has this magical insight beyond the cumulative billions of dollars continually reinvested by Sony, Facebook, Valve, etc etc.

They know more than you, we promise. VR will get cheaper, better, with more and more games.
"Taking over" gaming isn't the thing, it doesn't have to be either.

 

[Kamfair55]

The past has no relevancy in the future. 10 examples of failures can still lead to one success. VR is already beyond an accessory. We now have a VR console, you realize? Sony may even go that route one day too after hinting at the possibility that consoles will become the peripherals for VR.

And nobody cares like I said before the only people hyping vr are the people who have been sold on the sci fi version of what vr will be ready player one isn't happening

 

[Romulus]

And nobody cares like I said before the only people hyping vr are the people who have been sold on the sci fi version of what vr will be ready player one isn't happening

Huh? I could play VR in it's current state for the rest if my life so long as games keep coming. Of course it'll get better though.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

And nobody cares like I said before the only people hyping vr are the people who have been sold on the sci fi version of what vr will be ready player one isn't happening

Actually, Ready Player One is happening, but apparently you seem to think what Sci-Fi depicts is so far away. It really isn't.




Also, no one cared about PCs, smartphones, tablets, TVs, electricity or [insert anything] in the early days either, which discredits your point.

 

[Thaedolus]

Seems like every few weeks there's someone on neogaf that has this magical insight beyond the cumulative billions of dollars continually reinvested by Sony, Facebook, Valve, etc etc.

They know more than you, we promise. VR will get cheaper, better, with more and more games.
"Taking over" gaming isn't the thing, it doesn't have to be either.

No no no technology never evolves beyond its current state and will forever suck and the gaming market is a zero sum competition you win or you lose and VR hasn't penetrated to the level of consoles ergo it sucks.

-Sent from my Motorola RAZR 1.0

 

[Kamfair55]

Actually, Ready Player One is happening, but apparently you seem to think what Sci-Fi depicts is so far away. It really isn't.




Also, no one cared about PCs, smartphones, tablets, TVs, electricity or [insert anything] in the early days either, which discredits your point.

All you've showed me is prototypes and test footage nothing practical. Not many have the space or money for what regardless of the hype will be a novelty and i get it you're sold on it and that's cool but vr isn't catching on in the way you think it will

 

[Kamfair55]

Huh? I could play VR in it's current state for the rest if my life so long as games keep coming. Of course it'll get better though.

And that's good for you but devs need to put out something more then the "hey it's vr!" Game and the hundredth jump scare meme game.

 

[gifgaf]

All you've showed me is prototypes and test footage nothing practical. Not many have the space or money for what regardless of the hype will be a novelty and i get it you're sold on it and that's cool but vr isn't catching on in the way you think it will

Actually VR is catching on exactly how we think it will because most people here advocating VR are not saying it is the second coming of christ, but a cool piece of tech. I for one have been into VR since before the vive was launched and I've followed trends in vr since then. We know exactly what to expect. It is others who do not know what to expect and saying because it is not selling as well as a PS4 or other consoles its a failure. You are very much wrong.

 

[Romulus]

vr isn't catching on in the way you think it will

Okay, then tell me exactly how it will pan out. I'm just curious. What's your ten year crystal ball?

 

[Kamfair55]

Actually VR is catching on exactly how we think it will because most people here advocating VR are not saying it is the second coming of christ, but a cool piece of tech. We know exactly what to expect. It is you who who do not know what to expect.

I know what to expect like I said before it won't completely fall off the map it'll always be there it just won't be the revolutionary experience that some people and the game industry want us to believe

 

[Romulus]

And that's good for you but devs need to put out something more then the "hey it's vr!" Game and the hundredth jump scare meme game.

This just shows me you're uninformed. There's all of the above and more.

So a jump scare in VR is just a meme game but on a TV, it's what? Well crafted horror?

 

[DarthBuzzer]

All you've showed me is prototypes and test footage nothing practical. Not many have the space or money for what regardless of the hype will be a novelty and i get it you're sold on it and that's cool but vr isn't catching on in the way you think it will

Prototypes show that this is tractable and very much attainable. The cost in some of those examples isn't going to be particularly different than what we're used to once they hit consumer headsets. The added cost of cameras is not that high.

The space required for everything I showed is naught, except for the ball example; otherwise the rest can be done seated just fine.

If you think that what you just saw is a novelty, then you might as well call the mobile phone a novelty.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I know what to expect like I said before it won't completely fall off the map it'll always be there it just won't be the revolutionary experience that some people and the game industry want us to believe

It already objectively is the revolutionary experience that the game industry wants to believe, because it has already revolutionized how video games work. Games like Lone Echo / Echo VR are nothing alike what you get on a traditional screen.

 

[Kamfair55]

It already objectively is the revolutionary experience that the game industry wants to believe, because it has already revolutionized how video games work. Games like Lone Echo / Echo VR are nothing alike what you get on a traditional screen.

It hasn't all it's done is provide a better vr experience then previous then previous attempts outside of that it's had minimum impact on the overall gaming experience

 

[DarthBuzzer]

It hasn't all it's done is provide a better vr experience then previous then previous attempts outside of that it's had minimum impact on the overall gaming experience

I'm talking about the impact it has on a game, not the impact it's had on the game industry. I'm not talking about popularity here, but the revolutionary change you get if you buy a VR system.

 

[Rubik8]

I have PSVR and I love it. So, I think your opinion is dumb.

 

[Kamfair55]

Prototypes show that this is tractable and very much attainable. The cost in some of those examples isn't going to be particularly different than what we're used to once they hit consumer headsets. The added cost of cameras is not that high.

The space required for everything I showed is naught, except for the ball example; otherwise the rest can be done seated just fine.

If you think that what you just saw is a novelty, then you might as well call the mobile phone a novelty.

The mobile phone and vr aren't comparable the footage you showed me is the same stuff we have now only difference is an improvement in graphics. You'll always run into the issue of "is this better then the real thing?" But now you're going against that twice because what makes this better then playing soccer irl? And what makes this better/easier then playing it on console? I would never play a vr basketball game because it doesn't match up to real life and it won't give me what the console gives me

 

[Kamfair55]

This just shows me you're uninformed. There's all of the above and more.

So a jump scare in VR is just a meme game but on a TV, it's what? Well crafted horror?

That's a whole other topic on game design but as far as vr they're relying too heavy on jump scares because of the immersion which shows lack of innovation and imagination. The whole "horror" game genre is interchangeable with insert bland story excuse to get you to the jump scare payoff rinse and repeat. Outside of that you're just playing first person low budget Indy games with a handful of gems and I'm not paying hundreds of dollars for that limited experience and neither is the mainstream consumer

 

[Romulus]

The mobile phone and vr aren't comparable the footage you showed me is the same stuff we have now only difference is an improvement in graphics. You'll always run into the issue of "is this better then the real thing?" But now you're going against that twice because what makes this better then playing soccer irl? And what makes this better/easier then playing it on console? I would never play a vr basketball game because it doesn't match up to real life and it won't give me what the console gives me

The only improvement is graphics? What the?

 

[DarthBuzzer]

The mobile phone and vr aren't comparable the footage you showed me is the same stuff we have now only difference is an improvement in graphics. You'll always run into the issue of "is this better then the real thing?" But now you're going against that twice because what makes this better then playing soccer irl? And what makes this better/easier then playing it on console? I would never play a vr basketball game because it doesn't match up to real life and it won't give me what the console gives me

No, the footage I showed you showed off five massive features: eye tracking, hand tracking, body tracking, facial tracking, and haptic gloves. Consumers have access to none of these outside of hand+body tracking which only work as add-ons with next to no support that don't even work as well as in the gif, and hardly anyone even has those add-ons.

So for 99% of VR users, that's 5 new features that have nothing to do with graphics, and big ones too. Also, what makes this better than playing soccer than real life is the fact that you can't play soccer in real life with a friend 5000 miles away; that's the entire point of that demo, to show off the long-distance capabilities of VR, which is why like a mobile phone, it's not a novelty. Human communication is always a want, and VR does this better than any other technology.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

The only improvement is graphics? What the?

The ramblings of the uninformed never do seem to make sense.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

That's a whole other topic on game design but as far as vr they're relying too heavy on jump scares because of the immersion which shows lack of innovation and imagination. The whole "horror" game genre is interchangeable with insert bland story excuse to get you to the jump scare payoff rinse and repeat. Outside of that you're just playing first person low budget Indy games with a handful of gems and I'm not paying hundreds of dollars for that limited experience and neither is the mainstream consumer

Or you know, you can use the atmosphere that gains from the use of VR? This is up to developers. Bringing up jumpscares is irrelevant.

 

[Kamfair55]

The only improvement is graphics? What the?

Yeah because wearing gloves is going backwards it's not beating the controller but the controller takes away the immersion I'm supposed to be sold on all you're doing is hoping to overwhelm the eyes and make you forget the rest of your body. Vr is a novelty especially when trying to sell us on it what WOULD be a practical use is for amusement parks not video games

 

[Romulus]

That's a whole other topic on game design but as far as vr they're relying too heavy on jump scares because of the immersion which shows lack of innovation and imagination. The whole "horror" game genre is interchangeable with insert bland story excuse to get you to the jump scare payoff rinse and repeat. Outside of that you're just playing first person low budget Indy games with a handful of gems and I'm not paying hundreds of dollars for that limited experience and neither is the mainstream consumer

I honestly dont know what you're saying. A masterclass horror game on a TV can be exactly the same in VR but with much more immersion. That's a huge bonus and there are people that enjoy that.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Yeah because wearing gloves is going backwards it's not beating the controller but the controller takes away the immersion I'm supposed to be sold on all you're doing is hoping to overwhelm the eyes and make you forget the rest of your body. Vr is a novelty especially when trying to sell us on it what WOULD be a practical use is for amusement parks not video games

You don't appear to have ever used VR before and certainly have no knowledge or understanding of it. Haptic gloves are an objective step forward for VR. Inarguable.

Please, start making sense for once.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

How is this dog shit thread still puking its way back up the board once a week?

Funniest post I've read on Gaf in a long time.

 

[Kamfair55]

No, the footage I showed you showed off five massive features: eye tracking, hand tracking, body tracking, facial tracking, and haptic gloves. Consumers have access to none of these outside of hand+body tracking which only work as add-ons with next to no support that don't even work as well as in the gif, and hardly anyone even has those add-ons.

So for 99% of VR users, that's 5 new features that have nothing to do with graphics, and big ones too. Also, what makes this better than playing soccer than real life is the fact that you can't play soccer in real life with a friend 5000 miles away; that's the entire point of that demo, to show off the long-distance capabilities of VR, which is why like a mobile phone, it's not a novelty. Human communication is always a want, and VR does this better than any other technology.

It doesn't best the real experience though and it doesn't beat the console experience as in terms of controls and what you can actually do. You're essentially playing Kinect with better tracking and more immersion and that's what I'm supposed to be sold on? Improvements in tech and the existence of it doesn't move me you have to surpass what's already here which is #1 actual reality and #2 what we have on console

 

[Thaedolus]

Yeah because wearing gloves is going backwards it's not beating the controller but the controller takes away the immersion I'm supposed to be sold on all you're doing is hoping to overwhelm the eyes and make you forget the rest of your body. Vr is a novelty especially when trying to sell us on it what WOULD be a practical use is for amusement parks not video games

How much VR have you played? Stuff like Tetris Effect and Rez and Beat Saber are just not the same on a TV. Same with SuperHot VR, it's incredible. I was ducking behind a bench in one of the levels and reached out to balance myself and fell over because I forgot it wasn't really there. That's a pretty insane level of immersion for a game with low poly dudes running at you.

 

[Romulus]

Yeah because wearing gloves is going backwards it's not beating the controller but the controller takes away the immersion I'm supposed to be sold on all you're doing is hoping to overwhelm the eyes and make you forget the rest of your body. Vr is a novelty especially when trying to sell us on it what WOULD be a practical use is for amusement parks not video games

In a real life situation, you would understand it in seconds. Especially the difference in technology Darth posted, that's a quantum leap forward and to dismiss that as just graphics is more revealing than you know.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

It doesn't best the real experience though and it doesn't beat the console experience as in terms of controls and what you can actually do. You're essentially playing Kinect with better tracking and more immersion and that's what I'm supposed to be sold on? Improvements in tech and the existence of it doesn't move me you have to surpass what's already here which is #1 actual reality and #2 what we have on console

It's not trying to compete for real life. It's trying to compete for when real life can't even compete at all due to the limitations of physical distance. And you don't have any idea if the soccer example is good or not until trying it. This is literally one possibility of which many others could be made example of.

 

[Kamfair55]

You don't appear to have ever used VR before and certainly have no knowledge or understanding of it. Haptic gloves are an objective step forward for VR. Inarguable.

Please, start making sense for once.

You're missing my point the gloves are an improvement for vr but in terms of gaming it doesn't beat the controller then you start to run into what the move and the Kinect ran into which is "why can't I sit down and use a controller?" And all that activity just do it in real life. You're being sold a novelty regardless of the "wow the tech!" If you can't beat the real life version and the ease of console you're banking on being 'in the game" but doing nothing/limited

 

[Kamfair55]

In a real life situation, you would understand it in seconds. Especially the difference in technology Darth posted, that's a quantum leap forward and to dismiss that as just graphics is more revealing than you know.

It doesn't matter the tech in the gloves because they don't do what a controller does which is provide multiple points of controls for multiple things. I'm supposed to control my walking with gloves? Or am I stationary? Motion tracking my body is Kinect territory people are out of shape and want to sit down or actually do the activity in real life

 

[Kamfair55]

It's not trying to compete for real life. It's trying to compete for when real life can't even compete at all due to the limitations of physical distance. And you don't have any idea if the soccer example is good or not until trying it. This is literally one possibility of which many others could be made example of.

You can play online as is so you're now trying to sell me on a lesser experience but the only difference is I can see them

 

[Xenon]

I was definitely on the other said of this before I got the Quest. But having seen and played the games I can see the potential this medium has. Once they get this combined with haptic feedback into a easy to use afforable package. with easy networking with multiple units.... game over.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

You're missing my point the gloves are an improvement for vr but in terms of gaming it doesn't beat the controller then you start to run into what the move and the Kinect ran into which is "why can't I sit down and use a controller?" And all that activity just do it in real life. You're being sold a novelty regardless of the "wow the tech!" If you can't beat the real life version and the ease of console you're banking on being 'in the game" but doing nothing/limited

Completely subjective and context dependent. Not to mention that any VR fans would disagree with you even with today's motion controls. And no, you don't run into Kinect's issue. You can sit down with motion controls, and guess what? With gloves too!

Again, the real life version isn't always available and is grounded in reality. VR lets you break those rules and enables entirely new experiences from the ground up. Echo Arena could technically be eligible for an Olypmic Sport one day and yet it's a fictional sport in VR.

And since when is VR so limiting for gameplay? Considering VR enables fine control over physics, it enables lots of gameplay depth that screens can't compare to.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

You can play online as is so you're now trying to sell me on a lesser experience but the only difference is I can see them

VR is objectively a superior experience in this context because it's without question more social, and that's the whole point I was making. Stop trying to present your own misinformed opinions as truths.

If you are playing soccer in VR with someone as a replacement of the real world activity, you are doing it because you want to be socially engaged in that activity and as I said, VR will always be the most socially engaging outside of reality; a traditional screen doesn't come close and never will.

 

[Romulus]

It doesn't matter the tech in the gloves because they don't do what a controller does which is provide multiple points of controls for multiple things. I'm supposed to control my walking with gloves? Or am I stationary? Motion tracking my body is Kinect territory people are out of shape and want to sit down or actually do the activity in real life

Idk where you're going with this. It's not 2014 VR. You can sit with motion controls, stand, use a standard controller, so many options now. I'm a console and PC gamer, but many games are just superior in VR, no way around it.

 

[Romulus]

In terms of sustainability, VR has sold, what, between 2-4 million units per year with the exception of this year? Which this year will be well over 11 million.

We're getting alot of quality titles with previous, smaller install base. Do people think exclusives VR games will disappear as the install base doubles and triples over previous years?

I think this is the reason for this thread and all the hot takes honestly, theres a slow, but obvious uptick with devices like the Quest and its upsetting people. Thousands of devs are working on VR games and the old guard Is powerless(other than doom and gloom threads) to do anything.

 

[Mod of War]

I see it has course corrected in here and the personal attacks did not get too out of hand, this pleases me.

 

[Azelover]

VR is not a product to own in the home and use in the living room. In that respect, it will never take off. Just like home theatre 3D never took off, but people still wanna use it outside the home in a theatre setting.

VR has to be implemented in public places. Arcade, malls, hotels, etc.. In that way it could be very successful, but you gotta move the goal post a little.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

VR is not a product to own in the home and use in the living room. In that respect, it will never take off. Just like home theatre 3D never took off, but people still wanna use it outside the home in a theatre setting.

VR has to be implemented in public places. Arcade, malls, hotels, etc.. In that way it could be very successful, but you gotta move the goal post a little.

This is a complete misrepresnetation of what VR is. 99% of the uses for VR are in homes. People who say otherwise not understand VR at all. How are you supposed to play long games in VR? How are you supposed to socialize? To shop? To meditate? To learn skills? To watch movies/TV? To rewire your brain? To use it for work and computing? To use it to go places and revisit memories?

Simply bringing up those usecases debunks your idea and only shows why VR will take off.

 

[Kamfair55]

Completely subjective and context dependent. Not to mention that any VR fans would disagree with you even with today's motion controls. And no, you don't run into Kinect's issue. You can sit down with motion controls, and guess what? With gloves too!

Again, the real life version isn't always available and is grounded in reality. VR lets you break those rules and enables entirely new experiences from the ground up. Echo Arena could technically be eligible for an Olypmic Sport one day and yet it's a fictional sport in VR.

And since when is VR so limiting for gameplay? Considering VR enables fine control over physics, it enables lots of gameplay depth that screens can't compare to.

Let's take a vr basketball game for example can it understand and accurately track me doing a step back? How about behind my back or between my legs? How about a euro step or a sham god? What about playing defense? I can do all those things in real life AND on a console. What's the incentive to do all those moves physically with a vr helmet on my head and gloves on my hands instead of going to a court and doing the same? What's the incentive to the out of shape guy to do those moves physically in VR instead of using a controller that will do the same with less effort?

 

[Kamfair55]

VR is not a product to own in the home and use in the living room. In that respect, it will never take off. Just like home theatre 3D never took off, but people still wanna use it outside the home in a theatre setting.

VR has to be implemented in public places. Arcade, malls, hotels, etc.. In that way it could be very successful, but you gotta move the goal post a little.

Exactly! People are wanting it to work for games and that limits it's potential it should be used at amusement parks,online dating,video chat, teaching etc

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Exactly! People are wanting it to work for games and that limits it's potential it should be used at amusement parks,online dating,video chat, teaching etc

No, not exactly. You miss the whole point of VR. Since when does using VR for games limit it's potential? What kind of nonsensical logic is that? I'll remind you that the PC is used for games, as are smartphones, tablets, and every computing device. Again, your statement is debunked.

 

[Kamfair55]

VR is objectively a superior experience in this context because it's without question more social, and that's the whole point I was making. Stop trying to present your own misinformed opinions as truths.

If you are playing soccer in VR with someone as a replacement of the real world activity, you are doing it because you want to be socially engaged in that activity and as I said, VR will always be the most socially engaging outside of reality; a traditional screen doesn't come close and never will.

More social how? Because you say so? A microphone headset does the same thing outside of seeing the person and that's splitting hairs at that point

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Let's take a vr basketball game for example can it understand and accurately track me doing a step back? How about behind my back or between my legs? How about a euro step or a sham god? What about playing defense? I can do all those things in real life AND on a console. What's the incentive to do all those moves physically with a vr helmet on my head and gloves on my hands instead of going to a court and doing the same? What's the incentive to the out of shape guy to do those moves physically in VR instead of using a controller that will do the same with less effort?

Yes to all. The question is whether the feedback is appropriate enough to make it feel good to play. We don't really know since we don't have a good example of a full fledged big attempt at a basketball game in VR. What we do know is that the brain can fill in gaps quite easily so it's not off the table, and even if it is off the table, you missed the point I've been making this entire time. It was never about whether soccer or basketball would be better than playing it normally, but rather activities like that would be most socially engaging in VR for when real life cannot provide that context.

And no, your controller does not do the same. Controllers are restricted to canned animations.

 

[Kamfair55]

No, not exactly. You miss the whole point of VR. Since when does using VR for games limit it's potential? What kind of nonsensical logic is that? I'll remind you that the PC is used for games, as are smartphones, tablets, and every computing device. Again, your statement is debunked.

Because we have the controller it simplifies the commands of multiple things for you're stuck with novelty trying to make VR in games no matter how much you want it to be a thing. Instead use that tech where you're face to face for online dating go on virtual dates, take that vr to an amusement park take people to space, implement it in movie theaters, use it to teach doctors or help train bomb squads etc

 

[Kamfair55]

Yes to all. The question is whether the feedback is appropriate enough to make it feel good to play. We don't really know since we don't have a good example of a full fledged big attempt at a basketball game in VR. What we do know is that the brain can fill in gaps quite easily so it's not off the table, and even if it is off the table, you missed the point I've been making this entire time. It was never about whether soccer or basketball would be better than playing it normally, but rather activities like that would be most socially engaging in VR for when real life cannot provide that context.

And no, your controller does not do the same. Controllers are restricted to canned animations.

My point exactly the controller and console game struggle to provide real basketball but come close to it vr won't even come close to that or the real thing unless you're going to limited to a Dave and Buster's style shoot the ball in the basket for the high score style game because it can't beat the real thing

 

[DarthBuzzer]

More social how? Because you say so? A microphone headset does the same thing outside of seeing the person and that's splitting hairs at that point

It's more social because this is how human biology works. We respond to and learn from each other's body language, even at minuscule levels of detail. Most communication is non-verbal, and only VR/AR is able to cover the non-verbal areas properly outside of reality.

It's bizarre that you think a VR headset just offers a microphone. No thoughts on the tracking capabilities or the feeling of presence? Studies show that they have a colossal effect on social engagement. This shouldn't even need to be studied. It's plain common sense.