Support NeoGAF

[striferser]

Virtual reality will be the best way to watch porn.
And after several modification ilteration, it will be cheapen and more accessible to general public, along with developer who already familiar with VR set, and make quality game based on it.

It's going to be huge. Not now, but it will.

 

[Mman235]

Non-gamers/average consumers were impressed by the Wii's motion controls for a while as well. When the novelty wore off they went in closets or became dust collectors.

I'd say that motion control is in the same place VR was when it initially became big 15+ years ago; mostly a novelty that's pretty undeveloped and needs far more time in the oven. Despite my skeptical post earlier VR is much more developed comparatively at this point.

 

[Marty Chinn]

The reason the Rift has a shot is not because of gaming. It will play a part, but VR has serious implications for medicine and military. That's where the money will ultimately come from, and it will drive further R&D in the gaming space.

It's amazing to me how short-sighted some of the people here are. I really can't believe that there are folks unable to see the potential of this technology. It will completely transform the way we play games.

Within 30 years, it will be ubiquitous. The technology will continue to improve, to the point where you won't even need a bulky headset. The consumer version of the Rift will have outward-facing cameras to help with situational awareness. People worried about being completely cut off from the outside world are harboring unwarranted fears. It's an easy fix.

Is anyone actually saying it'll never happen? I can understand people saying this round/iteration/point in time might be a fad like the first attempt at it, but I have to think some day, some time in the future, it'll happen. I just can understand people who are skeptical about now.

 

[ndawgdrake]

Total immersion or something

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I get not caring about it or even thinking it's faddish, but I just can't wrap my head around this level of blunt narrow-mindedness. you wouldn't even try it? or do you just enjoy being a hardcore contrarian or something

It's just the way I'm wired, I don't have the need or desire to try every least little thing that comes along, no more than I care about the latest Hollywood blockbuster or how many "apps" are available for my phone. It doesn't matter to me, I just don't care.

With games, "innovation" has never been anything I've worried about. I don't need games always trying to toss new gameplay mechanics at me, always reinventing the wheel, in order to have fun with a title. On the contrary, I find that less is more. The better your game is received, the less you should change in the sequel. It isn't broken, don't fix it. Similarly, holding a controller in my hand and staring at a two dimensional television screen are not limiting factors in immersiveness for me. I simply don't care if the technology of games improves, or if the mechanics of gaming evolve. It's not important. What will make me happier is if games studios continue to improve at telling stories, and telling new stories. (No reboots -- I'm looking at you, Hollywood. And, for that matter, Nintendo.)

Yall can have VR, just like you can have motion, 1080p, and 60fps and eleventy billion polygons on the screen, and that's just for the 892 different types of guns. I don't need it, it's not interesting. Continually improved story telling, that's all I'm interested in seeing, and, frankly, technology isn't the limiting factor there, it's imagination and talent (and desire).

 

[Alx]

The reason the Rift has a shot is not because of gaming. It will play a part, but VR has serious implications for medicine and military. That's where the money will ultimately come from, and it will drive further R&D in the gaming space.

I don't really agree on that. VR is already available for medicine, military and industry, and those can afford paying for high-end setups. The main strength of the Oculust Rift is that it is affordable (compared to professional VR solutions), and that's really important for the mass market (sure professionals will appreciate spending less on their hardware, but when they already pay millions for simulators or MRI machines, they can spend a few thousands on VR).

 

[Omnistalgic]

Once ppl can get within inches of pornstars...life will becomeeaningless

 

[Mattias]

It's just the way I'm wired, I don't have the need or desire to try every least little thing that comes along, no more than I care about the latest Hollywood blockbuster or how many "apps" are available for my phone. It doesn't matter to me, I just don't care.

With games, "innovation" has never been anything I've worried about. I don't need games always trying to toss new gameplay mechanics at me, always reinventing the wheel, in order to have fun with a title. On the contrary, I find that less is more. The better your game is received, the less you should change in the sequel. It isn't broken, don't fix it. Similarly, holding a controller in my hand and staring at a two dimensional television screen are not limiting factors in immersiveness for me. I simply don't care if the technology of games improves, or if the mechanics of gaming evolve. It's not important. What will make me happier is if games studios continue to improve at telling stories, and telling new stories. (No reboots -- I'm looking at you, Hollywood. And, for that matter, Nintendo.)

Yall can have VR, just like you can have motion, 1080p, and 60fps and eleventy billion polygons on the screen, and that's just for the 892 different types of guns. I don't need it, it's not interesting. Continually improved story telling, that's all I'm interested in seeing, and, frankly, technology isn't the limiting factor there, it's imagination and talent (and desire).

Thank you

 

[Ray Wonder]

I haven't tried it. I won't be convinced that it's the future of gaming until I do.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

I would never buy an OR for myself but I sure hope a friend does so I could try it out

 

[Abdul Hafeez]

It's kind of the only thing, isn't it? I mean, what else is even happening in the tech world. Graphene chips and quantum computers aren't exactly around the corner. Neither is AR, so VR seems to be only plausible thing at this point.

 

[Omnistalgic]

It's just the way I'm wired, I don't have the need or desire to try every least little thing that comes along, no more than I care about the latest Hollywood blockbuster or how many "apps" are available for my phone. It doesn't matter to me, I just don't care.

With games, "innovation" has never been anything I've worried about. I don't need games always trying to toss new gameplay mechanics at me, always reinventing the wheel, in order to have fun with a title. On the contrary, I find that less is more. The better your game is received, the less you should change in the sequel. It isn't broken, don't fix it. Similarly, holding a controller in my hand and staring at a two dimensional television screen are not limiting factors in immersiveness for me. I simply don't care if the technology of games improves, or if the mechanics of gaming evolve. It's not important. What will make me happier is if games studios continue to improve at telling stories, and telling new stories. (No reboots -- I'm looking at you, Hollywood. And, for that matter, Nintendo.)

Yall can have VR, just like you can have motion, 1080p, and 60fps and eleventy billion polygons on the screen, and that's just for the 892 different types of guns. I don't need it, it's not interesting. Continually improved story telling, that's all I'm interested in seeing, and, frankly, technology isn't the limiting factor there, it's imagination and talent (and desire).

Cool posts man...I also think fun and great storytelling is what is most interesting to me...but I do want to see where vr goes. A game like tearaway for example is very Charming and artistic. So I would love to put on a head set and get close inside the teams world and see all there art...it can be pretty interesting but yeah I'm not super excited about it

 

[Beaulieu]

I tried the OR at work and it's some crazy shit. Only tried the roller coaster and I can see the potential.

If its less than 500 for the retail version I'll get it for sure, but I understand it wont work with casual games.

My non gamer friends will all lose their shit when I make em try but I dont think they will buy it.

 

[Atomski]

It's just the way I'm wired, I don't have the need or desire to try every least little thing that comes along, no more than I care about the latest Hollywood blockbuster or how many "apps" are available for my phone. It doesn't matter to me, I just don't care.

With games, "innovation" has never been anything I've worried about. I don't need games always trying to toss new gameplay mechanics at me, always reinventing the wheel, in order to have fun with a title. On the contrary, I find that less is more. The better your game is received, the less you should change in the sequel. It isn't broken, don't fix it. Similarly, holding a controller in my hand and staring at a two dimensional television screen are not limiting factors in immersiveness for me. I simply don't care if the technology of games improves, or if the mechanics of gaming evolve. It's not important. What will make me happier is if games studios continue to improve at telling stories, and telling new stories. (No reboots -- I'm looking at you, Hollywood. And, for that matter, Nintendo.)

Yall can have VR, just like you can have motion, 1080p, and 60fps and eleventy billion polygons on the screen, and that's just for the 892 different types of guns. I don't need it, it's not interesting. Continually improved story telling, that's all I'm interested in seeing, and, frankly, technology isn't the limiting factor there, it's imagination and talent (and desire).

Man the day I care that much about game stories is the day I stop caring about games. Its a terrible medium to tell stories unless its a sandbox experience like Dayz or Eve Online... which most gamers dont even like. They want to be lead down some narrow corridor shooting at anything that moves with some cutscenes thrown in every few minutes. Blegh.. its just awful. If anything Nintendo gets props from me because they seem to be the only ones to admit story just dosnt matter that much and focus on fun.

Also you talk about innovation not being key.. yet thats one of the biggest problems with the story telling. We need innovation in AI, its holding back story telling so much..

So yeah I completely disagree. If I want a good story I will play a sandbox game and make my own or hell Ill read a good book.. which I am lucky cause theres hundreds of them for every 1 decent videogame story.

 

[Zaptruder]

You won't get it from me. It will be rather easy not to participate. I'm already mostly skeptical that I will end up with a new generation console as it is. I haven't owned a Wii, Move, Kinect, I never will, and I'll not buy any VR devices, either. It's just not interesting.

I believe you. They'll keep 2D monitors around for guys like you.

 

[supergiz]

This makes me excited for 40 years from now when im a senior citizen. I wonder what vr will be like then if they can already do this now.

 

[emag]

I'm interested in the OR and similar headsets, but the quality and variety of supported games will be the real test. I have no interest in first person shooters or casual/exploration/MMORPGs, and I'd guess that the vast majority of OR games will fall into those two categories, with a smattering of vehicle-based games to round things out.

 

[Betta Lines]

Yall can have VR. Continually improved story telling, that's all I'm interested in seeing.

whynotboth.jpg

 

[Nocturno999]

That's a good question, considering that most old gamers have heard that song multiple times for decades. Not much different from 3D.

I'm cautiously optimistic this time.

 

[travisbickle]

I think it will be popular with the main stream.

People are underestimating how bored housewives are!

 

[Dark Octave]

You won't get it from me. It will be rather easy not to participate. I'm already mostly skeptical that I will end up with a new generation console as it is. I haven't owned a Wii, Move, Kinect, I never will, and I'll not buy any VR devices, either. It's just not interesting.

Kinda reads like an old man angry about change and them new fangled do-hickeys all the hip kids are jabberin about.

 

[Izayoi]

I'm interested in the OR and similar headsets, but the quality and variety of supported games will be the real test. I have no interest in first person shooters or casual/exploration/MMORPGs, and I'd guess that the vast majority of OR games will fall into those two categories, with a smattering of vehicle-based games to round things out.

It allows an excellent perspective for RTS and TPA as well. Not just that, but a super-low-latency screen with headache-free 3D is useful to almost all games, not just the genres you mentioned.

 

[akira28]

Kinda reads like an old man angry about change and them new fangled do-hickeys all the hip kids are jabberin about.

Cars shouldn't go faster than 30mph, or else the air friction will cause a fire.

 

[Izayoi]

.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

Continually improved story telling, that's all I'm interested in seeing, and, frankly, technology isn't the limiting factor there, it's imagination and talent (and desire).

Can't these things only be amplified and create more of an impact and immerse one further with VR? I don't understand this either or logic you're using. I really don't think companies that have been known for decent storytelling are suddenly going to stop creating good stories. If anything they'll try and make more subtle details to draw the player in for VR, such as a robust facial animation system not unlike HL2 or TLoU's. I can tell you from having played HL2 on a Rift the effect of having characters standing in front of you and looking you in the eyes is an uncanny and almost "human presence" effect.

The effect of being watched in VR has been studied for years by various psychiatric research outfits. They've even used it as exposure therapy for people that have trouble with public speaking. The point being this adds a valuable addition to a medium where assigning some form of empathy and connection to the characters in your narrative is essential. Suddenly characters take on a much more tangible and real world feel when it actually feels like you're in the room with them. Imagine a Mass Effect or Skyrim type game with a great animation system. Those conversations you have with the characters could suddenly come alive in a way you never thought possible. I say be open to the experience and at least give it a try sometime, but maybe wait for the consumer version for a better overall impression

 

[TetraGenesis]

I get not caring about it or even thinking it's faddish, but I just can't wrap my head around this level of blunt narrow-mindedness. you wouldn't even try it? or do you just enjoy being a hardcore contrarian or something

Occam's Razor.

 

[spekkeh]

The reason the Rift has a shot is not because of gaming. It will play a part, but VR has serious implications for medicine and military. That's where the money will ultimately come from, and it will drive further R&D in the gaming space.

It's amazing to me how short-sighted some of the people here are. I really can't believe that there are folks unable to see the potential of this technology. It will completely transform the way we play games.

...it's amazing to me you're apparently oblivious this tech started out in military, since they've been working with it for fifty years?

 

[bj00rn_]

And my jaw continues to drop every time someone tries to compare VR to 3D TVs.. It doesn't make any sense. I just want to remind people that it's actually possible to experience presence in VR even without stereoscopy in the same way that you can close one of your eyes and still be a part of real life (so-to-speak).

Anyway. I think those who "knows" this will be the next big thing has a common perception for why: It's not about one particular technical factor, but because for the first time in their life they've experienced the feeling of actually being inside a game (or different "universe") without self-prppelled immersion helped by imagination.

 

[system11]

The topic says it all. 3D didnt take off cause no one liked the glasses. OR seems amazing from impressions. But why are so many ppl convinced that VR will take off with OR or the rumored sony VR solution. Its a I have to stick something on my head . I dont want to do it. And I'm not the only gamer who feels this way. And many many casuals feel the same way. So why is this such a big deal all of a sudden.

Touch screens didnt take off till it was intuitive. Thats why stylus phones failed and the iphone worked. I'm pretty sure the current VR trend wont take off ...

Hyperbole.

It'll come and go just like everything else which requires headgear that blocks out the outside world. I know a lot of people who don't even like using 2-ear gaming headsets. The interesting thing this time around is the supporters are just rabidly vocal, as you see on every thread which even mentions the tech.

They'll never fix the motion sickness problem either without achieving zero motion -> display latency. Good luck with that.

I hope it doesn't become mainstream, because it's not how I want to game. For the sake of the fans though I hope it becomes a financially viable niche, and there's a possibility it will drive better frame rates in games which is good for everyone.

 

[quantumnerd]

Unless I have to sit in my living room with something on my head ignoring my wife and kids.

People are not going to go nuts for a device that blocks out all other sensory input.

You mean... like good "earbuds" (IEMs)?

Also, RE: "3D gives me headaches". Do you prefer to see through one eye, or two? 3D in red/cyan and shutter glasses form has given people headaches. For shutters, it's thanks to flickering. And polarized 3D still has ghosting issues. When each eye gets its own video feed, that's gone.

I've seen a lot of bad arguments against VR. The half I haven't dipped into yet centers around the actual limitations of the current hardware. The limitations are real, but they'll get better.

 

[Fedelias]

I think that the one thing that would detract from VR catching mainstream attention is the need for a fairly capable PC.

 

[VindicatorZ]

This is one of the funniest threads ever. All of you VR doubters will eat crow once you try it. I love how some of you just want to dismiss it so blindly. Some even say "there's nothing interesting about VR" Notice how the ones who say this are 99% of the time people who have not tried it yet? You'll be hard pressed to find someone who has tried the Rift and wasn't blown away by it, even in it's early devkit form.

As YuShtink said, if the consumer Oculus is as good as Valve's prototype (it will be) , once the masses try it, it's going to BLOW THEIR MINDS OUT OF THE BACK OF THEIR HEADS. It may take a few years for the hardware to truly catch up, but this without a doubt, is going to be HUGE.

Bank on it.

 

[Terrible_Majesty]

because video games are about immersion. this is the next best thing to a holodeck.

 

[Durante]

Yes, I'm a geek, but the very idea that someone could say "VR is not interesting" and mean it is entirely alien to me.

As we have seen from the videos of grandmothers and 2-year-old children posted in this thread, they agree.

 

[spekkeh]

I think that the one thing that would detract from VR catching mainstream attention is the need for a fairly capable PC.

This is probably the reason I won't buy it any time soon. I'm phasing out my desktop PC, and I prefer small ultrabook tablet hybrids for the PC I do use. Only when integrated graphics become good enough will I get a OR for myself.

This is one of the funniest threads ever. All of you VR doubters will eat crow once you try it. I love how some of you just want to dismiss it so blindly. Some even say "there's nothing interesting about VR" Notice how the ones who say this are 99% of the time people who have not tried it yet? You'll be hard pressed to find someone who has tried the Rift and wasn't blown away by it, even in it's early devkit form.

That's a tautology. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who has tried the Rift who wasn't very interested in it.

(there actually were a few on gaf who weren't completely blown away, but still) 

 

[Nymerio]

This is probably the reason I won't buy it any time soon. I'm phasing out my desktop PC, and I prefer small ultrabook tablet hybrids for the PC I do use. Only when integrated graphics become good enough will I get a OR for myself.

That's a tautology. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who has tried the Rift who wasn't very interested in it.

(there actually were a few on gaf who weren't completely blown away, but still) 

The people who seem like they were the most blown away way seem to be mostly those that weren't really interested in it, like random relatives/friends of rift owners.

 

[NoPiece]

That's a tautology. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who has tried the Rift who wasn't very interested in it.

(there actually were a few on gaf who weren't completely blown away, but still) 

He didn't say you'd eat crow because everyone who has tried liked it (there is clearly self selection going on). He said you'll eat crow because once you try it, you will be blown away. Either way, not a tautology.

 

[Izayoi]

...it's amazing to me you're apparently oblivious this tech started out in military, since they've been working with it for fifty years?

And yet it took a fifteen-year-old in his parent's garage to bring the technology to fruition.

I'm saying that as it matures, it's very likely that further advancements will be funded by military and medical capital.

Gamers aren't going to be Oculus' only customers.

 

[Colbert]

I am not very convinced about VR in my home / living room if I have to wear special equipment for it, even Oculus Rift.

 

[riflen]

It's official; gaffers are old men who shout at clouds and use the Internet by typing URLs into Google.

 

[Hypron]

I am not very convinced about VR in my home / living room if I have to wear special equipment for it, even Oculus Rift.

How else would you have VR though? A direct link to your optical nerve?

 

[spekkeh]

He didn't say you'd eat crow because everyone who has tried liked it (there is clearly self selection going on). He said you'll eat crow because once you try it, you will be blown away. Either way, not a tautology.

I mean the other part, where he said that we should notice that those that aren't interested in it haven't tried it. I'd say that's a duh, because I haven't tried it even if I am interested in it, there's a pretty big barrier you have to cross now to be able to use it. (also there's interested and thinking it will catch on; I definitely want to try it, but given my prior experiences with VR and the games medium I can see myself ditching it again when the novelty wears off)

 

[Zaptruder]

Yes, I'm a geek, but the very idea that someone could say "VR is not interesting" and mean it is entirely alien to me.

As we have seen from the videos of grandmothers and 2-year-old children posted in this thread, they agree.

They arrive at the concept without baggage without pretension.

Nerds that think they're above it have spent decades justifying to themselves why this thing that should obviously be cool... isn't.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Everything in cyclical.

3D had its shot, now it's VR again.

It will fail all over again.

 

[NoPiece]

I mean the other part, where he said that we should notice that those that aren't interested in it haven't tried it. I'd say that's a duh, because I haven't tried it even if I am interested in it, there's a pretty big barrier you have to cross now to be able to use it. (also there's interested and thinking it will catch on; I definitely want to try it, but given my prior experiences with VR and the games medium I can see myself ditching it again when the novelty wears off)

Ya, you are right, that was a tautology (I was just staring at the BOLD, missing the rest). Anyway, I think VR could be big, soon. But by big, like World of Warcraft was big, not like iPhone big. Tens of millions of units, billions of dollars, but not mainstream until whatever the next technology leap is.

Everything in cyclical.

3D had its shot, now it's VR again.

It will fail all over again.

Look at the other 3d (not stereovision, but the 3d graphics that became the norm during the PSX/N64 generation), that had its shot, and has stuck around. Some things are cyclical, some things come once and fail forever, and some stay for good.

 

[VindicatorZ]

I mean the other part, where he said that we should notice that those that aren't interested in it haven't tried it. I'd say that's a duh, because I haven't tried it even if I am interested in it, there's a pretty big barrier you have to cross now to be able to use it. (also there's interested and thinking it will catch on; I definitely want to try it, but given my prior experiences with VR and the games medium I can see myself ditching it again when the novelty wears off)

I'm just saying that the vast majority of people who have been dismissing VR, calling it a gimmick and what not, have NEVER tried the Oculus Rift. Any of your prior experiences with VR can go out the window when it comes to the Rift. And the few who weren't blown away by it, it seems like it always has to do with it making them sick. That's understandable, but it is an issue that has basically been solved with the newest Crystal Cove prototype with Lower latency, low persistence and positional tracking. And it's only going to continue to improve.

Nobody ever complains about the giant field of view, 1:1 Head tracking and Stereoscopic 3D. It is truly incredible, even in the primitive devkit.

Now if the biggest barrier for you is wearing something on your head, then that's perfectly understandable and maybe VR will never be for you. But it's not because what's inside the headset isn't worth it (which some in the thread are saying.) It most certainly is. It is absolutely amazing, and it is going to introduce a new era of gaming. I don't like to say it's going to change gaming, it's simply going to add to it. And of course there's tons of implications for the movie industry and many other industries as well.

 

[spekkeh]

Fair enough, and I can fully agree there.
(though I'd say the cybersickness is inherently insurmountable, but for most people it will be fine I guess)

 

[B-Genius]

Unless I have to sit in my living room with something on my head ignoring my wife and kids.

People are not going to go nuts for a device that blocks out all other sensory input.

I wonder what the ratio of serious gamers (living alone or in a tech-filled household) to serious gamers (who also tend to wives and kids) is, and whether it's relevant to the success of VR or the Oculus.

In regard to the bolded, have you seen how people walk down the street with their heads buried in their smart phone? It's awful and annoying because sensory/spatial awareness goes down the drain, but it didn't stop the technology becomming mainstream.

 

[spekkeh]

I do wonder though, but this is rather more philosophizing than me dismissing it outright, if it has staying power as a storytelling medium. It certainly adds stuff, but it also takes away. And as such it's not unlike 3D, and also HFR, in movies.

People already mentioned that it would primarily work well in first person exploration games, conversely the realism added to the third person perspective would likely for most cases just make it weird, like 'why am I floating in the air above these people' and the increased presence probably causes less identification with the protagonist. Similar to 3D movies, where I often lose immersion thinking why are these people miniature. Also similar to movies, 3D only really works if you set the camera to really deep focus. Bokeh causes massive eyestrain (to me at least), and I can imagine that happening in VR as well; so you lose cinematographic storytelling techniques. Much like directors vehemently sticking to 24p, better may not always be better. Then again, 3D has seen uptake under directors as well, and does not appear to be going away. (although that also has to do with combating piracy of course)

 

[spekkeh]

I wonder what the ratio of serious gamers (living alone or in a tech-filled household) to serious gamers (who also tend to wives and kids) is, and whether it's relevant to the success of VR or the Oculus.

Yeah I wonder about this too. I could see myself being all over VR when I was still a student living in my bachelor pad, or even living in the attic of my parents place. Now with a wife and soon to arrive kid, I'm decidedly less enthusiastic about the concept. I'd hate to see them wear HMDs around me for long periods of time.
Well, maybe I am old man yelling at cloud.