VR is a fad and will never take off

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
Problem is, I hate, hate, hate strapping things to my head or wearing gloves, I don’t want to dress up to play a game. I don’t want to lose track of the room. I don’t want to spend $400 to do it, either.

It might be the future, but I don’t like it. Have fun with it, however.
If it were small enough, I'm sure it would be fine. Sunglasses for example. And you'd be able to keep track of the room just fine by scanning it in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inanilmaz
Dec 1, 2014
764
126
295
Belgium
I think that the best way to democratize the Vr is that the consoles revolve around it for example by forcing the use of a VR helmet and thus have only games in VR ...

If they do not do that, the VR will never take off ... This is the only way to democratize that ... It also requires that VR headsets kill the TV market, television is the past, the future is clearly VR ... Even for movies / series ... With a better image quality of VR headsets, the TV no longer has any positive argument ...

VR is the best possible future, now to see if the general public will finally get started but for that it is necessary that the entertainment industry takes more risk ...

And I do not think they want to impose VR because television is an extraordinary tool for propaganda ...
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
322
302
185
I think the confirmations about PS5 and PSVR is absolutely huge. They're investing big and they even said so.

Along with the release of the Oculus Quest getting rave reviews and Valve's headset selling out through September, the timing of this thread is horrible. Or maybe the OP knew all this positive info and was bothered. He sort of implied that he wanted VR to fail. Either way, where we stand now is possibly the brightest spot in VR's history in terms of positive news. And all this fancy new VR tech that people are over the moon about? It'll be cheaper and smaller and no time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gifgaf

lukilladog

Member
Feb 6, 2018
592
235
205
VR will be an entirely different thing if brain computer interfaces can be brought to market. The question is if it is physically possible to create wireless high bandwidth bidirectional brain computer interfaces.
I like science fiction.

Responsibility has nothing to do with it. You're either smart to accept/reject or you're not.

VR has proven itself, unlike the other examples. It's also the one that always had the most promise (by magnitudes) before it launched. VR was always a staple Sci-Fi dream for gamers. 3D TVs, Motion Controls, and Kinect, not so much. Sci-Fi and reality are two different things, until they aren't.

What if gamers just want everything to stay the same, always? Well first off, new generations will never let that happen so long as they grow up with a changed industry. But to answer that directly, they are fine to continue playing as they are, but people become problems when they actively hate on what they think they don't want. That's also largely it. It's what they think they don't want. I've seen thousands of people say they don't want VR, think it's a gimmick, or don't want to play X game/genre in VR. That group of people then changed their minds after using it.

So I'll say it again; it's fine to want to keep things as they are, and participate in that, but it's pathetic when someone starts wanting new changes to die, especially as VR's other uses would improve the lives of those wanting it to burn. It would be like wanting smartphones to die because they don't like mobile gaming. Yep, lets take this device that has connected billions of people in convenient ways and no doubt improved most of our lives just because I want my hobby to never change.

And tell me, are gamers interested in TVs and Monitors? Yeah, I'd say a lot of gamers are, at least those on console/PC. Gamers like better displays. So should they resist VR (and I'll throw in AR too) which can give them the best display setup money literally can't buy and play just as they always have, but using virtual screens? Why resist that, in a future where comfort/resolution issues will be solved.

The media is to blame for the impossible-to-meet hype machine they create each time a new technology comes along. That's purely all I'm blaming the media for.
You can be dumb to accept/reject stuff as well so I don´t know what you mean, I think quite a few VR costumers feel a little dumb for spending money on something they don´t wanna use anymore. And even if VR tech was perfect, it still faces the same problem as those others devices, people happen to find normal gaming just fine. VR gaming on the other hand, is just a different experience. As for the other points, I don´t care if somebody wants changes to die, you are giving them too much importance. Virtual displays, I doubt a small tiny screen will ever reach the same level of performance as a much bigger display that only has to draw pixels one after another without compromises of depth and perspective, you are selling smoke.
 
Last edited:

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
322
302
185
I doubt a small tiny screen will ever reach the same level of performance as a much bigger display that only has to draw pixels one after another without compromises of depth and perspective, you are selling smoke.

I think VR will surpass traditional monitor image quality.

VR has the advantage of tracking your pupils and only rendering what you are looking at to 100%. The tech is new, but its real and it works. Things like this don't get worse, they get better.



So in 6-10 years time, not only will VR be smaller, more affordable, real depth perception, wireless, truth to life scale, but it'll have the best image quality money can buy on high end rigs.
 
Last edited:

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
You can be dumb to accept/reject stuff as well so I don´t know what you mean, I think quite a few VR costumers feel a little dumb for spending money on something they don´t wanna use anymore.
Sure, and there are people that feel dumb for buying a PS4/Switch/Xbox One that collects dust. There are always unused devices out there.
And even if VR tech was perfect, it still faces the same problem as those others devices, people happen to find normal gaming just fine. VR gaming on the other hand, is just a different experience.
New generations will grow up with a fresh palette. It's not unreasonable at all to expect them to prefer what gives them more stimulation. VR will just be too powerful and too enticing for many people to resist, and since it will have lots of uses outside of gaming, plenty of people will gradually adapt it for gaming.
As for the other points, I don´t care if somebody wants changes to die, you are giving them too much importance. Virtual displays, I doubt a small tiny screen will ever reach the same level of performance as a much bigger display that only has to draw pixels one after another without compromises of depth and perspective, you are selling smoke.
I'm not selling smoke. You just aren't educated on this subject, whereas I am.

There is a limit to what humans can percieve. Try various TV distance/resolution calculators for yourself. You'll notice that TVs and monitors gain no benefit after 8K without sitting so close that you can't even see the whole screen anymore. 8K is equal to 120 PPD. VR will eventually reach that. The average human acuity is 20/15, which is actually only 80 PPD. Only rare individuals have an acuity higher than that.
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
I think VR will surpass traditional monitor image quality.

VR has the advantage of tracking your pupils and only rendering what you are looking at to 100%. The tech is new, but its real and it works. Things like this don't get worse, they get better.



So in 6-10 years time, not only will VR be smaller, more affordable, real depth perception, wireless, truth to life scale, but it'll have the best image quality money can buy on the best rigs.
This is all true, though I believe he was talking about virtual screens rather than actual 3D scenes in VR.

And as a little bonus, you can achieve up to a maximum 95% reduction in both pixels and rays for ray/pathtracing. That gives a boost on a double axis, ensuring VR will always be the easiest place to render 3D graphics.
 
Last edited:

cormack12

Gold Member
Mar 21, 2013
2,922
1,798
745
This is exactly the shortsighted kind of threads that irk me the most. VR, and by extension AR have many applications, both in gaming and outside gaming. Both are going absolutely nowhere and if anything will become more and more prevalent as the hardware becomes cheaper and technology catches up to the specific needs of both VR and AR like the per pixel LED screens that were just prototyped.
To be fair, although the OP was a typical hot take from this user the thread has actually been quite informative and balanced.
 

gifgaf

Gold Member
Jul 6, 2016
128
94
300
people happen to find normal gaming just fine. VR gaming on the other hand, is just a different experience. As for the other points, I don´t care if somebody wants changes to die, you are giving them too much importance. Virtual displays, I doubt a small tiny screen will ever reach the same level of performance as a much bigger display that only has to draw pixels one after another without compromises of depth and perspective, you are selling smoke.
I think the majority are not saying VR is going to take over flat screen gaming. I wouldn't want to give up flat screen gaming, I love it. VR is an addition not a replacement to gaming, Just like analogue joypads added to gaming, just like 3D graphics accelerators added to gaming.

The second part of your argument is also shows me that you really do now know what VR is about. Foveated rendering is coming with eye tracking. This will allow devs to greatly reduce the workload on everywhere apart from the point of focus of your eyes. In comparison a flat screen has to render the whole screen and I think that will push VR ahead of flat screen for graphic fidelity.

Sure its not here yet, but its is being talked about and it definitely is coming.
 
Last edited:

GigiFusc

Member
Oct 18, 2017
210
114
185
VR is a game changer. Once you try it, it’s just off the scale amazing. The level of experience it offers is unparalleled. And I’m not talking about just games!

But! It is not currently fit for mass market usage. They must find solutions to the big issues:
Nausea
Comfort
Cost
Power

Once solutions are found for those things, the world will be changed 20 years after. I’m not sure it will be changed for the better... but it will change.
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
3,361
3,879
365
Never say never. A better thing to say is VR is niche and will most likely will never be mainstream.
videogames were niche and thought to never go mainstream for a while. comic books were niche. this is the grinding cycle of capitalist nostalgia, the things that were niche/"hip"/subculture in the past inevitably become cool again after a generation grows into a adulthood (thus it being a ~20-year cycle).

i think as new tech develops, it will be seemless. to easily use the internet in the 90s, you needed a desktop computer, a monitor, a keyboard, a modem, a terminal program, a second phoneline etc. nowadays your senile grandma can browse on her phone, with very low barriers to entry.

as we see 3D technology develop, as we see holographic technology develop, and projection technology, we will see more varieties of VR than ever before. i think glasses-free VR will happen, one of these decades, and it will be like magic, and it will be the killer app that makes it go mainstream.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,292
504
215
I like science fiction.
satellites where once the province of science fiction. There's a difference between soft science fiction and hard science fiction. A brain computer interface is in the works by Elon Musk, by Facebook, and by many others.

The applications are mindboggling, it is not just vr, but military, you can potentially control not just senses, but emotions and the very will itself. Imagine someone with the uncontrollable urge to tell the truth, or urge to think about secrets which you can read from the machine. Imagine being able to tell if someone is lying or telling the truth. To obtain any secret whatsoever, no amount of training can withstand what the ability to manipulate the brain will allow, that is where soft science fiction errs, and the scariest part of such technologies.

Without human rights, brain computer interfaces and a full understanding of the brain, a totalitarian regime could put in implants guranteeing loyalty to the regime in all citizens.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
322
302
185
VR is a game changer. Once you try it, it’s just off the scale amazing. The level of experience it offers is unparalleled. And I’m not talking about just games!

But! It is not currently fit for mass market usage. They must find solutions to the big issues:
Nausea
Comfort
Cost
Power

Once solutions are found for those things, the world will be changed 20 years after. I’m not sure it will be changed for the better... but it will change.
I think the problems you mention will be solved very soon, under 10 years max.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GigiFusc and OSC
Woah, come on now...vr porn is nice. :messenger_tears_of_joy:



videogames were niche and thought to never go mainstream for a while. comic books were niche. this is the grinding cycle of capitalist nostalgia, the things that were niche/"hip"/subculture in the past inevitably become cool again after a generation grows into a adulthood (thus it being a ~20-year cycle).

i think as new tech develops, it will be seemless. to easily use the internet in the 90s, you needed a desktop computer, a monitor, a keyboard, a modem, a terminal program, a second phoneline etc. nowadays your senile grandma can browse on her phone, with very low barriers to entry.

as we see 3D technology develop, as we see holographic technology develop, and projection technology, we will see more varieties of VR than ever before. i think glasses-free VR will happen, one of these decades, and it will be like magic, and it will be the killer app that makes it go mainstream.

I see the tech being a big hurdle. Wireless with no need for sensors for the controls being the two biggest. Then they have to deal with motion sickness. Then you have to deal with extend play fatigue.
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
I see the tech being a big hurdle. Wireless with no need for sensors for the controls being the two biggest. Then they have to deal with motion sickness. Then you have to deal with extend play fatigue.
Oculus Quest already fulfills the first two. Motion sickness only occurs at the software level and no longer the hardware level, meaning games like Moss, Beat Saber, and SuperHot will be fine due to no disconnect in movement. I linked a potential cure for motion sickness caused by movement in a previous page, but as of now comfort options and VR legs will get most people past it.

Extended play fatigue won't occur while seated other than the headset needing to get smaller and the vergence accommodation conflict needing to be solved or largely mitigated, which will be done with a 2nd generation of headsets. Standing VR - at least open world games will be designed to act as livable worlds with plenty of relaxing activities. Imagine Red Dead Redemption 2, where you get to sit down and relax each time you're at a tavern or sitting by the campfire with NPCs. You can still play a lot of standing-based games while seated. One of Echo VR's E-Sports competitors mostly plays seated, and that's a really intense game.
 
Last edited:

gifgaf

Gold Member
Jul 6, 2016
128
94
300
I see the tech being a big hurdle. Wireless with no need for sensors for the controls being the two biggest. Then they have to deal with motion sickness. Then you have to deal with extend play fatigue.
Isn't that a coincidence, I get my wireless all in one, no sensor needed Oculus quest next week! The new version of the Oculus Rift has no need for sensors either, although its still tethered to the PC for now. I don't suffer from motion sickness much either.

Its strange how some people talk big, but do not know much about the VR market right now. It is advancing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Xenon

tr1p1ex

Member
Feb 18, 2014
753
86
330
It is still in the gimmick stage. Wake me up when a Valve makes HL3 for VR only. Then I'll be interested.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy

gifgaf

Gold Member
Jul 6, 2016
128
94
300
It is still in the gimmick stage. Wake me up when a Valve make HL3 for VR only. Then I'll be interested.
There's rumours that Half Life VR is coming with the new Valve Index headset in a month or two. Its all but confirmed that Valve is working on Half life VR and Valve has promised 3 fully fledged VR games to come with the Index.
 
Last edited:

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
It is still in the gimmick stage. Wake me up when a Valve makes HL3 for VR only. Then I'll be interested.
Highly likely that Valve's 2019 game is Half Life VR. Also highly unlikely that it's HL3. It's probably as rumored, going to be a prequel to 2.
 
Last edited:

lukilladog

Member
Feb 6, 2018
592
235
205
satellites where once the province of science fiction. There's a difference between soft science fiction and hard science fiction. A brain computer interface is in the works by Elon Musk, by Facebook, and by many others.

The applications are mindboggling, it is not just vr, but military, you can potentially control not just senses, but emotions and the very will itself. Imagine someone with the uncontrollable urge to tell the truth, or urge to think about secrets which you can read from the machine. Imagine being able to tell if someone is lying or telling the truth. To obtain any secret whatsoever, no amount of training can withstand what the ability to manipulate the brain will allow, that is where soft science fiction errs, and the scariest part of such technologies.

Without human rights, brain computer interfaces and a full understanding of the brain, a totalitarian regime could put in implants guranteeing loyalty to the regime in all citizens.
There is like a universe of difference between controlling things using a brain interface and using a brain interface to make you see or live predetermined things, like designed dreams. That´s science fiction.


I think the majority are not saying VR is going to take over flat screen gaming. I wouldn't want to give up flat screen gaming, I love it. VR is an addition not a replacement to gaming, Just like analogue joypads added to gaming, just like 3D graphics accelerators added to gaming.

The second part of your argument is also shows me that you really do now know what VR is about. Foveated rendering is coming with eye tracking. This will allow devs to greatly reduce the workload on everywhere apart from the point of focus of your eyes. In comparison a flat screen has to render the whole screen and I think that will push VR ahead of flat screen for graphic fidelity.

Sure its not here yet, but its is being talked about and it definitely is coming.
I don´t think VR and normal gaming can co-exist in the same space, they both clash at the point where people have to chose between the goggles or the TV, so I don´t see it as an addition or an advancement to normal traditional gaming like 3d graphics or joypads, it´s a different experience, radically. The second, I was referring to the physical limits of displays, they have a finite amount of screen pixels to resolve detail, a regular display can use all of them to draw the picture across the entire screen, no compromises, a virtual display will use only a portion of the the actual tiny physical screen to try to draw the same picture, not only the amount of pixels used to draw an "X" element on the picture will be far inferior but also will have to suffer with simulated depth and perspective (the required techniques to smooth out artifacts have a cost). And although I concede that at some point in the future it could reach the required ppd, it still will be relying on 3d rendering.

I think VR will surpass traditional monitor image quality.

VR has the advantage of tracking your pupils and only rendering what you are looking at to 100%. The tech is new, but its real and it works. Things like this don't get worse, they get better.

....
So in 6-10 years time, not only will VR be smaller, more affordable, real depth perception, wireless, truth to life scale, but it'll have the best image quality money can buy on high end rigs.
You are talking about render quality, I was referring to the physical limits of diplays, see above.

Sure, and there are people that feel dumb for buying a PS4/Switch/Xbox One that collects dust. There are always unused devices out there.

Yeah, but here we are talking about device abandonment by most of the user base.

New generations will grow up with a fresh palette. It's not unreasonable at all to expect them to prefer what gives them more stimulation. VR will just be too powerful and too enticing for many people to resist, and since it will have lots of uses outside of gaming, plenty of people will gradually adapt it for gaming.
I'm not selling smoke. You just aren't educated on this subject, whereas I am.

Wishful thinking.

There is a limit to what humans can percieve. Try various TV distance/resolution calculators for yourself. You'll notice that TVs and monitors gain no benefit after 8K without sitting so close that you can't even see the whole screen anymore. 8K is equal to 120 PPD. VR will eventually reach that. The average human acuity is 20/15, which is actually only 80 PPD. Only rare individuals have an acuity higher than that.

Even if it reaches 120ppd, you will be still relying on 3d rendering to draw the screen, ugly. For the amount of budget and power required to have the highest quality render possible, plus the high end headset... I´d rather pick the real thing, cheap, real life looking, energy efficient, comfortable, and everybody in the room can see it just fine. I´m sure everybody would go this way because everybody likes a clean living or entertaining room with a nice display on it .Why do you need to simulate scratching your ass in VR, when you can just scratch your ass?, VR has like no chance here.
 
Last edited:

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
I don´t think VR and normal gaming can co-exist in the same space, they both clash at the point where people have to chose between the goggles or the TV, so I don´t see it as an addition or an advancement to normal traditional gaming like 3d graphics or joypads, it´s a different experience, radically. The second, I was referring to the physical limits of displays, they have a finite amount of screen pixels to resolve detail, a regular display can use all of them to draw the picture across the entire screen, no compromises, a virtual display will use only a portion of the the actual tiny physical screen to try to draw the same picture, not only the amount of pixels used to draw an "X" element on the picture will be far inferior but also will have to suffer with simulated depth and perspective (the required techniques to smooth out artifacts have a cost). And although I concede that at some point in the future it could reach the required ppd, it still will be relying on 3d rendering.
Of course they can coexist. All computing platforms have had gaming be a major component of it, and since VR lends itself perfectly well to gaming, why would it be any different here?

You do realize that when I referred to 120 PPD, I was talking about the ability to recreate 8K displays inside VR, not just that the virtual image will feel like a perceived 8K quality in 3D scenes. As long as you correctly adjust size/distance of screen to the optimal values like you would in real life, you will always maintain an 8K resolution virtual display in VR at 120 PPD. Relying on 3D rendering makes zero difference as I'll explain more below.

Yeah, but here we are talking about device abandonment by most of the user base.
Where's your source on this? On the other hand, I can bring up a source showing the monthly active VR userbase has doubled from 2018-2019 on Steam, and was also the same in 2017: https://uploadvr.com/vr-steam-grew-2018/

Humans have nearly always craved more immersion and stimulation as long as it delivers it correctly.

Even if it reaches 120ppd, you will be still relying on 3d rendering to draw the screen, ugly. For the amount of budget and power required to have the highest quality render possible, plus the high end headset... I´d rather pick the real thing, cheap, real life looking, energy efficient, comfortable, and everybody in the room can see it just fine.
What is this weird assumption you have about drawing things in 3D? There is fundamentally no difference whatsoever to your eyes between virtual renderings and real life, except for current specs and the vergence accomdation conflict which is entirely fixable. Light-field displays are one of several ways that should satisfy your unusual need based on it's definition, as it would project rays of light at lots of different angles to converge on the eye. That's the same concept as how light hits our eyes from natural light sources. Current VR headsets are illusions, but the perception of reality is already an illusion anyway, so there shouldn't even be a need to have anything other than a headset than solves vergence accommodation regardless of how it does it.

Again, as several of us have explained to you, reaching maximum specifications for the human eye is easier in VR and in fact requires barely any power to render a virtual display. We could render at least 4K virtual screens today if we had the equivalent displays in headsets. Not to mention, raw material cost will be lower for VR because they will be small screens. It costs a lot to manufacture/ship/contain huge TVs that take up retail shelf space that might sit there for weeks or months on end.

I´m sure everybody would go this way because everybody likes a clean living or entertaining room with a nice display on it, VR has like no chance here.
If people want a clean living room, why on earth would they go with a huge display? They would opt for VR/AR. Local communal viewing and not having to wear something are the only two benefits you get. The former becomes less important the higher adoption gets, and the latter will be such a small issue when it's likely that people will adapt to wearing these on a daily basis in the first place, and in doing so may even find it more comfortable because then they can lie down in the perfect position without worrying about where the TV is, maybe put themselves in some magical fairy forest too for a calming effect.

With AR/VR virtual displays, you get: practical infinite screen size, practical infinite screens, the ability to share them with anyone in the world outside of your room, built-in 3D capabilities, build-in 'light-field' display capabilities, and the ability to have screens fixed or follow you, built-in support (soon) for intelligent interfacing using eye-tracking, the ability to make them portable on the go via transport, work, at the park, toilet, etc.

You have all these assumptions about VR, and none of them are correct. What are you trying to do here?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gifgaf

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,292
504
215
There is like a universe of difference between controlling things using a brain interface and using a brain interface to make you see or live predetermined things, like designed dreams. That´s science fiction.
Once an advanced enough way to read the brain is developed it will rapidly accelerate our understanding of the brain. Even now crude electrodes can evoke feelings, memories and sensations. All it takes is understanding and finer stimulation to create the latter.

Besides Musk's comments on increasing the bandwidth of the brain machine interface, merging, a new cortex like system above the cortex, iirc, suggest bidirectionality.

A high bandwidth bidirectional brain computer interface can in theory not just augment cognitive capacity but also allow for next generation ar and vr
 
Last edited:

gifgaf

Gold Member
Jul 6, 2016
128
94
300
I don´t think VR and normal gaming can co-exist in the same space, they both clash at the point where people have to chose between the goggles or the TV, so I don´t see it as an addition or an advancement to normal traditional gaming like 3d graphics or joypads, it´s a different experience, radically.
What are you talking about? Can you explain this point? I choose to play games on VR or flat screen now. I can also choose but not limited to, play sports, watch movies, get drunk or discuss the finer points of VR on a forum. I do what I want to do. Its not like Anti matter and normal matter that will cancel each other out, its just another cool tech to play with. Your point makes no sense and reeks of someone grasping at straws If you cant handle having both that's fine, but don't pretend that's its impossible, there's millions of headsets out there, millions of people are doing that right now, even with the Gen one headsets. Just wait until Gen 2 or Gen 3. Things are gonna get so good, I'm excited for the future! Aren't you?

The second, I was referring to the physical limits of displays, they have a finite amount of screen pixels to resolve detail, a regular display can use all of them to draw the picture across the entire screen, no compromises, a virtual display will use only a portion of the the actual tiny physical screen to try to draw the same picture, not only the amount of pixels used to draw an "X" element on the picture will be far inferior but also will have to suffer with simulated depth and perspective (the required techniques to smooth out artifacts have a cost). And although I concede that at some point in the future it could reach the required ppd, it still will be relying on 3d rendering.
I'm not sure if you have ever put a headset on in your life but pixel count isn't nearly as much of a problem as you think. Foveated Rendering IS being developed, Eye tracking IS a reality, this is a fact. its also a fact that Foveated Rendering can and will make a HUGE difference in performance that flat screens will not be able to compete with. Headsets use lower pixel count screens for now for performance issues but newer headsets are already pushing that. There is a point that pixel count will give diminishing returns we are close to that now I think with 8K or even 4K.
 
Last edited:

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
322
302
185
Yeah, I don't understand the point of regular gaming and VR gaming being unable to coexist.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
322
302
185
Foveated Rendering can and will make a HUGE difference in performance that flat screens will not be able to compete with.
I think this a low key feature to push VR for tech heads. Imagine in 5 years from now DF testing a big budget game that has a VR port with foveated rendering. It could not only demonstrate that VR is the most immersive version but the most pristine image quality. Highly likely we will be seeing those sort of scenarios in the near future. Limiting resolution to what the pupils are focused on is a massive leap forward over what monitors and TVs can do. Combine that with smaller, lighter, cheaper, and wireless headsets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gifgaf

lukilladog

Member
Feb 6, 2018
592
235
205
What are you talking about? Can you explain this point? I choose to play games on VR or flat screen now. I can also choose but not limited to, play sports, watch movies, get drunk or discuss the finer points of VR on a forum. I do what I want to do. Its not like Anti matter and normal matter that will cancel each other out, its just another cool tech to play with. Your point makes no sense and reeks of someone grasping at straws If you cant handle having both that's fine, but don't pretend that's its impossible, there's millions of headsets out there, millions of people are doing that right now, even with the Gen one headsets. Just wait until Gen 2 or Gen 3. Things are gonna get so good, I'm excited for the future! Aren't you?



I'm not sure if you have ever put a headset on in your life but pixel count isn't nearly as much of a problem as you think. Foveated Rendering IS being developed, Eye tracking IS a reality, this is a fact. its also a fact that Foveated Rendering can and will make a HUGE difference in performance that flat screens will not be able to compete with. Headsets use lower pixel count screens for now for performance issues but newer headsets are already pushing that. There is a point that pixel count will give diminishing returns we are close to that now I think with 8K or even 4K.
You are giving me the reason, you can´t do both at the same time, so it´s not an addition to regular or standard gaming as 3d graphics or analogue sticks are. I hope you can see how silly that comparison was. Screen resolution and the 3d rendering are a problem if you want your text to look as look as sharp as it does on a regular screen.


Once an advanced enough way to read the brain is developed it will rapidly accelerate our understanding of the brain. Even now crude electrodes can evoke feelings, memories and sensations. All it takes is understanding and finer stimulation to create the latter.

Besides Musk's comments on increasing the bandwidth of the brain machine interface, merging, a new cortex like system above the cortex, iirc, suggest bidirectionality.
...

A high bandwidth bidirectional brain computer interface can in theory not just augment cognitive capacity but also allow for next generation ar and vr
Don´t give me Musk links man, most of the stuff that guy says makes real scientists laugh. All I know is that we are at a point where it takes minutes or hours of complex algorythm crunching just to interpret MRI scans in order to get some kind of a person´s brain insight about chosing button A or button B... a state of mind a fraction of a second long about going left or right, black or white. Inserting a virtual world and getting feedback of what a person is actually seeing and doing there seems very far away.


Of course they can coexist. All computing platforms have had gaming be a major component of it, and since VR lends itself perfectly well to gaming, why would it be any different here?

As an alternative yes, virtual reality gaming is a thing, as an integral part of standard gaming nope, it is getting pushed away already.

You do realize that when I referred to 120 PPD, I was talking about the ability to recreate 8K displays inside VR, not just that the virtual image will feel like a perceived 8K quality in 3D scenes. As long as you correctly adjust size/distance of screen to the optimal values like you would in real life, you will always maintain an 8K resolution virtual display in VR at 120 PPD. Relying on 3D rendering makes zero difference as I'll explain more below.

Where's your source on this? On the other hand, I can bring up a source showing the monthly active VR userbase has doubled from 2018-2019 on Steam, and was also the same in 2017: https://uploadvr.com/vr-steam-grew-2018/

Those are hardware surveys, but the biggest problem are not the sales, it´s device abandoning:

"You could give a Rift+PC to every single person in the developed world for free, and the vast majority would cease to use it in a matter of weeks or months. I know this from seeing the results of large-scale real-world market testing, not just my own imagination "


Humans have nearly always craved more immersion and stimulation as long as it delivers it correctly.

The brain is always trying to save energy, gaming is already wearisome as it is. This is why it will never take over standard gaming.

What is this weird assumption you have about drawing things in 3D? There is fundamentally no difference whatsoever to your eyes between virtual renderings and real life, except for current specs and the vergence accomdation conflict which is entirely fixable. Light-field displays are one of several ways that should satisfy your unusual need based on it's definition, as it would project rays of light at lots of different angles to converge on the eye. That's the same concept as how light hits our eyes from natural light sources. Current VR headsets are illusions, but the perception of reality is already an illusion anyway, so there shouldn't even be a need to have anything other than a headset than solves vergence accommodation regardless of how it does it.

That´s not what I´m talking about. You need the highest quality render possible to reduce the synthetic appearance of your virtual display, if you are trying to make it pass as a real one that is, like in augmented reality. You will need some sophisticated rendering.

Again, as several of us have explained to you, reaching maximum specifications for the human eye is easier in VR and in fact requires barely any power to render a virtual display. We could render at least 4K virtual screens today if we had the equivalent displays in headsets. Not to mention, raw material cost will be lower for VR because they will be small screens. It costs a lot to manufacture/ship/contain huge TVs that take up retail shelf space that might sit there for weeks or months on end.


If people want a clean living room, why on earth would they go with a huge display? They would opt for VR/AR. Local communal viewing and not having to wear something are the only two benefits you get. The former becomes less important the higher adoption gets, and the latter will be such a small issue when it's likely that people will adapt to wearing these on a daily basis in the first place, and in doing so may even find it more comfortable because then they can lie down in the perfect position without worrying about where the TV is, maybe put themselves in some magical fairy forest too for a calming effect.

With AR/VR virtual displays, you get: practical infinite screen size, practical infinite screens, the ability to share them with anyone in the world outside of your room, built-in 3D capabilities, build-in 'light-field' display capabilities, and the ability to have screens fixed or follow you, built-in support (soon) for intelligent interfacing using eye-tracking, the ability to make them portable on the go via transport, work, at the park, toilet, etc.

Because it´s not only about cleanliness or functionality, go read some psychology about why people likes big things.

You have all these assumptions about VR, and none of them are correct. What are you trying to do here?

We all know what are you trying to do here.
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
As an alternative yes, virtual reality gaming is a thing, as an integral part of standard gaming nope, it is getting pushed away already.
As we've discussed already, the link between the two is virtual screens and socialization. These go hand-in-hand. Discord will no doubt offer VR chat rooms in the future for people to play games alongside each other in LAN parties, split-screen, home theater setups, etc.

Those are hardware surveys, but the biggest problem are not the sales, it´s device abandoning: "You could give a Rift+PC to every single person in the developed world for free, and the vast majority would cease to use it in a matter of weeks or months. I know this from seeing the results of large-scale real-world market testing, not just my own imagination
Well, yeah. You give a PS4 to every person in the developed world for free and many people are not going to be able to keep up with it. Quoting Palmer Luckey does not mean that most current users have abandoned their hardware, given that current users are mostly early adopters, a wave of people who buy into early technologies that clearly are more technologically-inclined than the average person.

The brain is always trying to save energy, gaming is already wearisome as it is. This is why it will never take over standard gaming.
VR can in the future, be more relaxing than traditional gaming; it just depends on what you're doing at a given time. If you're playing games like Moss then you are seated while stimulating yourself in many calming environments. You could also use virtual displays as I've talked about before. VR will be the best way to de-stress. I can tell you this first-hand even when using it for standing VR games.

That´s not what I´m talking about. You need the highest quality render possible to reduce the synthetic appearance of your virtual display, if you are trying to make it pass as a real one that is, like in augmented reality. You will need some sophisticated rendering.
In other words, you need to render an actual TV/Monitor model. Why is this such an insurmountable problem? You can literally use photogrammetry or light-field captures and get something that looks almost lifelike today., and you already have VR applications that have great light bouncing and reflections using raytracing. You're going nowhere with this idea of 3D rendering in VR being so difficult.

Because it´s not only about cleanliness or functionality, go read some psychology about why people likes big things.
If people like big things, they can get that virtually, even bigger. If they must have a TV sitting there in their house, that can be virtual too, as the same headset would be doing AR too.

We all know what are you trying to do here.
Yes. Correct your mistaken idea of what VR is.
 
Last edited:

gifgaf

Gold Member
Jul 6, 2016
128
94
300
giving me the reason, you can´t do both at the same time, so it´s not an addition to regular or standard gaming as 3d graphics or analogue sticks are. I hope you can see how silly that comparison was. Screen resolution and the 3d rendering are a problem if you want your text to look as look as sharp as it does on a regular screen.
You are the one who is looking silly, do you really think I cant have both flat screen and VR?. I am doing it right now. I choose when I want to play and how I want to play. I cant play my Switch, PC, PS4 or any combination of game console at the same time, your point is funked mate.

As for screen res and pixel count you are really not as clued up as you think. Just to prove that pixel count isn't a problem here's a pic through a lens of the new HP Reverb and remember this tech is still in the early stages.

 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,292
504
215
Don´t give me Musk links man, most of the stuff that guy says makes real scientists laugh. All I know is that we are at a point where it takes minutes or hours of complex algorythm crunching just to interpret MRI scans in order to get some kind of a person´s brain insight about chosing button A or button B... a state of mind a fraction of a second long about going left or right, black or white. Inserting a virtual world and getting feedback of what a person is actually seeing and doing there seems very far away.
I think we're more advanced than that, there have been talks of being able to identify what movie or image a person's thinking about.
This ‘mind-reading’ algorithm can decode the pictures in your head
Also deep learning, has made strong advances in other areas that have stumbled scientists like protein folding. Enough data and a real time deep learning solution is not out of the question.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
322
302
185
It's allready a multibillion dollar industry, I think it's safe to say it's not a fad.
And we're still in the somewhat cumbersome, ugly, expensive phase. With every new headset strides are made.
 
Last edited:

Pagusas

Member
Jun 9, 2006
10,639
849
1,145
Prosper, Tx
VR will be our future, but for now it’s years to early and the tech is no where near where it needs to be. It’s a fun “alpha preview” of where things are going, but real VR/immersion is decades away. We just need to get through these ugly periods first.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
Mar 25, 2019
55
92
185
I wish i had known this before I spent all that money on the PSVR and all those games.

Me and my daughter have got a lot of laughs together playing games like astro bot and beat saber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gifgaf

lukilladog

Member
Feb 6, 2018
592
235
205
You are the one who is looking silly, do you really think I cant have both flat screen and VR?. I am doing it right now. I choose when I want to play and how I want to play. I cant play my Switch, PC, PS4 or any combination of game console at the same time, your point is funked mate.

As for screen res and pixel count you are really not as clued up as you think. Just to prove that pixel count isn't a problem here's a pic through a lens of the new HP Reverb and remember this tech is still in the early stages.

Look at the graphic below, can you see why they are not equivalent? (vr to sticks and 3d graphics.):



As for the screenshot, nice try, if you zoom close enough even 768p screens can show the little details.

Ps.- To clarify, when I said they cannot coexist in the same space I was not referring to your desk or living room, I was talking about how the products can´t work combined into one. The hardware requirements are vastly different (at the same level of graphics), the development of games in general gets so much more complicated, price of admission goes up, and devs will unavoidably discriminate the smaller group of players. The true is that the big games never arrived to PSVR.


As we've discussed already, the link between the two is virtual screens and socialization. These go hand-in-hand. Discord will no doubt offer VR chat rooms in the future for people to play games alongside each other in LAN parties, split-screen, home theater setups, etc.

If games cannot succeed as a link between the two, much less virtual screens and socialization.

Well, yeah. You give a PS4 to every person in the developed world for free and many people are not going to be able to keep up with it. Quoting Palmer Luckey does not mean that most current users have abandoned their hardware, given that current users are mostly early adopters, a wave of people who buy into early technologies that clearly are more technologically-inclined than the average person.

There is nothing extraordinary about early adopters, highly technologically-inclined consumers, "dumping" their new toys, there is plenty of examples in the latest years. I don´t think Palmer Luckey is lying so his data will do for me.

VR can in the future, be more relaxing than traditional gaming; it just depends on what you're doing at a given time. If you're playing games like Moss then you are seated while stimulating yourself in many calming environments. You could also use virtual displays as I've talked about before. VR will be the best way to de-stress. I can tell you this first-hand even when using it for standing VR games.

The threshold in standard gaming is so much higher, you can do more during more time, and it´s not only about comfort, bring the best VR set from the future and people will want to stop playing RE as fast or even faster, bring the ultimate VR experience with brain interfaces and dream like realism, and some people might end with a PTSD.

In other words, you need to render an actual TV/Monitor model. Why is this such an insurmountable problem? You can literally use photogrammetry or light-field captures and get something that looks almost lifelike today., and you already have VR applications that have great light bouncing and reflections using raytracing. You're going nowhere with this idea of 3D rendering in VR being so difficult.

It´s complicated, to get readings of the light in the enviroment you will need some reflective surface device close to the area where the screen is supposed to be... at this point I´d just put a real screen there.

If people like big things, they can get that virtually, even bigger. If they must have a TV sitting there in their house, that can be virtual too, as the same headset would be doing AR too.

Not being an actual material possession takes away the gratificatory elements, this stuff is hardwired in humans.

Yes. Correct your mistaken idea of what VR is.

You know that I know what VR is, it is your general vision of VR what you think everybody should adhere to. We are not allowed to think VR should deliver now or bust, without being called uneducated, misinformed or in the wrong.
 
Last edited:

Ellis

Member
Dec 3, 2018
323
502
195
One day all this VR shit will be possible via a simple contact lens.

That is when the real fun begins.

Well, for people of 2135.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
322
302
185
One day all this VR shit will be possible via a simple contact lens.

That is when the real fun begins.

Well, for people of 2135.
I think we'll see large sets of wireless glasses in 15 years with better visuals on high-end PCs today. That's close enough to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pr0cs

gifgaf

Gold Member
Jul 6, 2016
128
94
300
Look at the graphic below, can you see why they are not equivalent? (vr to sticks and 3d graphics.):

No, I seriously do not understand your point, nice MSpaint graphic though.



As for the screenshot, nice try, if you zoom close enough even 768p screens can show the little details.
Ok so we agree that
Screen resolution and the 3d rendering are a problem if you want your text to look as look as sharp as it does on a regular screen.
and
I doubt a small tiny screen will ever reach the same level of performance as a much bigger display that only has to draw pixels one after another without compromises of depth and perspective, you are selling smoke.
Is wrong then? good.

The HP Reverb is a real headset and that screenshot is real with a real world improvement in resolution. Heres Adam Savage's Tested talking about it. (I'm not saying this headset is a good headset)



Ps.- To clarify, when I said they cannot coexist in the same space I was not referring to your desk or living room, I was talking about how the products can´t work combined into one. The hardware requirements are vastly different (at the same level of graphics), the development of games in general gets so much more complicated, price of admission goes up, and devs will unavoidably discriminate the smaller group of players.

PS4 and PC both play flat screen and VR games. I really do not know what your point here is sorry. If you are saying that flat screen games cannot work in VR then again you are completely wrong, Its not that hard (In comparison to making a game from the ground up) to convert any game to VR Here are some examples of that happening with just a few tweaks.

Doom 3 modded to play in VR (Its good too)



Alien Isolation modded to play in VR



Dolphin Emulator playing Mariokart in VR



These games all have the full depth of a VR game. One of my favourite things in VR is to play old games that I played on a flat screen and put them in VR, Its a whole different experience to actually feel like you are there. Im very excited about this point, once the modding community fully kicks in and the ports start flowing ill be revisiting games I've loved and playing them in VR. I think theres some real BIG money to be made here for devs of old games.

Have you even tried VR once? Its obvious your knowledge is lacking here mate, I hope I have enlightened you.



The true is that the big games never arrived to PSVR.
What constitutes a big game to you? how about..

Borderlands VR
Skyrim VR
Wipeout Omega collection
Resident Evil 7
Dirt Rally


These are just some of the flat screen games ported to VR are these not big enough for you? You don't even realise that VR has its own exclusive heavy hitters.


For my parting gift I have a Comic that I feel is appropriate for this thread.

 
Last edited:

Foxbat

Banned
May 30, 2018
510
550
295
While I would call the current form of VR "New tech", I think it's been on the market long enough to gauge whether or not it's going to find mass appeal or not.

Unfortunately for the avid fans, it appears that VR will likely continue to be a niche platform. While I don't agree with the OP's dismissive tone, his premise is correct if his info is accurate. 3 million a year isn't the kind of market penetration that you'd want to see for a mass market adoption. I suspect that many of the buyers of current VR rigs, and the ones sold next year are people who already own one.

BUT that's ok. As long as there are games that people enjoy coming to VR, it will continue to entertain those who enjoy it. Nothing wrong with being niche.
 

petran79

Member
Sep 17, 2012
9,155
833
525
Probably because VR is far too demanding and engaging mentally and physically. Even for supposedly relaxing games. It also crosses the threshold of addiction and that stops it to be as popular for a mass market. If the medical community is biased towards normal video games concerning addiction, imagine what will happen with VR. I think big companies want to bypass many health regulations, either by marketing or even bribes, but they still havent managed it.
I remember in the 80s my dad who was in his 30s tried to play an NES game (kung fu master) and stopped because of the fast paced action and what was going on screen. Imagine today's VR.
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
If games cannot succeed as a link between the two, much less virtual screens and socialization.
That makes no sense. Social VR and spatial computing will always be relevant to gamers because they are general use cases that happen to cross over into gaming.

There is nothing extraordinary about early adopters, highly technologically-inclined consumers, "dumping" their new toys, there is plenty of examples in the latest years. I don´t think Palmer Luckey is lying so his data will do for me.
His data is built on future owners who currently have no clear intent to buy in. That data is perfectly fine to talk about in the context of a what-if situation, but it does not directly correlate with today's situation. All it does is skew the data. Not many grandmas have bought into VR, but if you give everyone a VR headset, many grandmas will let it collect dust. See the problem with your argument? It skews the data. Judge the current market. My source showed double growth in 2018 for SteamVR. That's not only quantifiable data, but it's related to the current market.

The threshold in standard gaming is so much higher, you can do more during more time, and it´s not only about comfort, bring the best VR set from the future and people will want to stop playing RE as fast or even faster, bring the ultimate VR experience with brain interfaces and dream like realism, and some people might end with a PTSD.
What do you mean you can do more in more time? Explain what that's supposed to mean. Obviously hyper-realistic VR horror is going to turn people off, but inversely, hyper-realistic Nintendo Bubble Land TM will be super calming. The idea is to strike a balance and do what you want to do. Besides, even a hyper-realistic headset can still do horror in a way that isn't scarring; that depends on the game design.
It´s complicated, to get readings of the light in the environment you will need some reflective surface device close to the area where the screen is supposed to be... at this point I´d just put a real screen there.
I already told you we have raytraced lighting solutions for virtual TVs. They work perfectly fine. Your issue does not exist at all.

Not being an actual material possession takes away the gratificatory elements, this stuff is hardwired in humans. /QUOTE]If you think people care about their virtual items today, wait until they are persistent objects in the real world. People definitely do have an attachment. Is there more if it's a physical possession? Yes. But it's hard to argue with infinite customization, cheap, easy access, and more reactive interaction using virtual objects. Having virtual TVs that I can resize, reshape, and take with me on the go is just ultimately a lot more useful, more accessible, and outright more immersive experience than having one sitting in a particular spot.
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
While I would call the current form of VR "New tech", I think it's been on the market long enough to gauge whether or not it's going to find mass appeal or not.

Unfortunately for the avid fans, it appears that VR will likely continue to be a niche platform. While I don't agree with the OP's dismissive tone, his premise is correct if his info is accurate. 3 million a year isn't the kind of market penetration that you'd want to see for a mass market adoption. I suspect that many of the buyers of current VR rigs, and the ones sold next year are people who already own one.

BUT that's ok. As long as there are games that people enjoy coming to VR, it will continue to entertain those who enjoy it. Nothing wrong with being niche.
There will be far more new owners than reoccuring customers. The sheer diversity of the lineup ensures this. Oculus Quest, Go, PSVR, and Windows MR in particular are all a lot more accessible than other headsets, and are among the cheapest. Those will logically drive newer customers than veterans. It will also help that there are a bunch of AAA games on the way that will help drive newcomers into the ecosysem.

Lastly, your assumption on the adoption rate isn't correct. Name me a single technology platform that took off in just 3 years. You can't. Smartphones were hyped up in the early 2000s and considered a bust - a fad, until the iPhone launched. Same thing happened to the Internet, to PCs, to tablets.

Platforms always take at least 10 years to take off. No one actually thought VR would do so this fast except for the media and various analysts. Sales are roughly on par with everyone's expectations in the VR industry.
 
May 16, 2019
38
11
95
I see it as a fad too. It's not ready. Also too expensive.

I enjoyed what I played, but not enough to spend more than a console on the bundle. Nor now, when it's a lot cheaper. I'd only want to play a few games, and Until Dawn Rush of Blood and things like it aren't enough to sell me.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: CurryPanda

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
817
417
200
Probably because VR is far too demanding and engaging mentally and physically. Even for supposedly relaxing games. It also crosses the threshold of addiction and that stops it to be as popular for a mass market. If the medical community is biased towards normal video games concerning addiction, imagine what will happen with VR. I think big companies want to bypass many health regulations, either by marketing or even bribes, but they still havent managed it.
I remember in the 80s my dad who was in his 30s tried to play an NES game (kung fu master) and stopped because of the fast paced action and what was going on screen. Imagine today's VR.
Sure, there will be plenty of controversies, but that won't stop VR as a medium; it might incite some form of regulation or censorship, but that's about it. What you're talking about will have little affect on VR.