|
That is outside of porn? Has VR even really delivered anything? And people are excited by the new Nvidia cards because of VR? Why? objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 11:24 on May 10, 2016 |
#
?
May 10, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
VR has delivered a bunch of boring-looking shovelware. This is an enthusiast forum so there's probably a lot more interest in VR per capita here than in the general population, plus "I'm not interested in this. Goodbye!" isn't exactly a worthwhile post. I'm a little surprised at the lack of a VR mock thread anywhere on the forums but I guess there isn't even enough meat to it to mock.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:I'm a little surprised at the lack of a VR mock thread anywhere on the forums but I guess there isn't even enough meat to it to mock.  I read this forum and other tech sites pretty regularly and VR just seems like a bunch of hype over nothing, and it was curious that last week Nvidia's main talking point in regards to their new cards was VR.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
VR is like the progressive levels of HD followed by 3D in Televisions: It's 'something' that the industry tries to use to stabilize falling interest in their products. "Buy a new one! Your old one isn't capable of 4096k Super HD/VR!" Problem is, there's no compelling reason to upgrade to a VR-Capable system if you don't already want to make love to the technology. You have to spend, what, $400 on a video card in an already-good computer system or $300 for a VR-capable console and then drop $500+ on the VR kit in addition? And what do you get? Like six games, half of which look like they were created with a version of the software used to create stick-man instructional videos in Portal 2? And, what if you drop that money and - much like super HD televisions - there aren't enough other adopters of the technology to warrant developers even bothering with it? You just spent upto a grand to have something to sit in your closet. Don't get me wrong, I've played with the Oculus. It's rad. But the C:B scenario just isn't good enough for an average consumer, yet. VR, at least for the moment, is a technology that an industry has pinned its hopes on and not much else.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Most of the experiences are just really tech demos and sandboxes. The novelty of those will wear off pretty quick; for the average consumer the price point is too high right now and room-scale is too intrusive to really make a dent. If you run flight/space/racing simulators, though, it's a drastically better experience. Once you play Elite: Dangerous or any racing game (using a good HOTAS or steering wheel respectively), you won't be able to go back. You're not playing a video game; you're driving a loving race car and you're actually flying a ship through space. It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
MisterZimbu posted:Most of the experiences are just really tech demos and sandboxes. The novelty of those will wear off pretty quick; for the average consumer the price point is too high right now and room-scale is too intrusive to really make a dent. Until you feel sick, that is. Unless you're lucky enough not to have that problem.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Until you feel sick, that is. Unless you're lucky enough not to have that problem. From my experience and what I've heard from others, motion sickness is a lot less likely in actual simulators with a cockpit, since there's something there to put your movement in context. Especially true in racing games, since you're making 1:1 movements with a steering wheel.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
MisterZimbu posted:From my experience and what I've heard from others, motion sickness is a lot less likely in actual simulators with a cockpit, since there's something there to put your movement in context. Especially true in racing games, since you're making 1:1 movements with a steering wheel. Well, I've done it myself, in my Vive on Live For Speed, and even though it's locked nicely at 90 FPS, if I move the car laterally too often, I definitely don't feel peachy; and even linear movement can be uncomfortable. I played Euro Truck Simulator 2 for a while though, and I guess because it's a game with slower motion visually anyway, it wasn't so bad. That said, if I had to swerve lanes on the motorway or something like that, it could be a little unpleasant. So I guess with respect to games that trick your brain into thinking you are moving when your inner ear knows you're not, you can probably get used to it to some extent, and slower motion is better than fast motion. But it's not something I'd say is going to be popular with regards to the mass-market. Oh, I was also using a wheel, Logitech G27. All the well designed room-scale games don't make me feel ill whatsoever, because that 1:1 relationship is intact. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:05 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Arsten posted:VR is like the progressive levels of HD followed by 3D in Televisions: It's 'something' that the industry tries to use to stabilize falling interest in their products. "Buy a new one! Your old one isn't capable of 4096k Super HD/VR!" Which Oculus? DK2, CV1? Have you tried the Vive? Room scale VR with tracked controllers isn't like 3DTVs at all. It isn't like television, it's simply not an apt comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Which Oculus? DK2, CV1? Have you tried the Vive? Actually, it is in the way that I compared them. I didn't compare relative content or experience between the two, you'll notice.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Actually, it is in the way that I compared them. I didn't compare relative content or experience between the two, you'll notice.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:You're comparing small iterative technological steps of an existing technology to something that is a completely new and different experience. If all you're trying to say is that the industry is backing VR because they're hoping it'll sell and that VR is in it's infancy then you're not really saying anything interesting, those things are true of any emerging technology. Except that it's not "a completely new and different experience." It's a small iterative step on attempts of VR throughout the last 30 years, almost every single step of which has had very limited success. If you are saying that any of the VRs are "a completely new and different experience" you are either young or you simply haven't been paying attention.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Except that it's not "a completely new and different experience." It's a small iterative step on attempts of VR throughout the last 30 years, almost every single step of which has had very limited success. If you are saying that any of the VRs are "a completely new and different experience" you are either young or you simply haven't been paying attention. It is compared to television which is what you were comparing it to. The only worthwhile VR devices available during the 90s and 00s cost a fortune, had horrendous latency and lovely displays making them a nauseating experience. They were prohibitively expensive and had virtually nothing in the way of software support. Unlike all of those earlier devices the Vive doesn't make you sick just by wearing it, as long as your head is being tracked there is no ill effects. Not feeling like you're gonna throw up while feeling like you're somewhere you're not is "a completely new and different experience" to almost the entirety of the world's population. Actually walking around an environment, phsyically leaning around corners, reaching out and grabbing virtual objects and examining them in your hands with 1:1 motion is ridiculously cool and no other VR product has ever come close to doing it as convincingly as the Vive does. The Vive is rough around the edges and has some pretty severe limitations thanks to it's cutting-edgeness, but it's usable as a consumer product and the experiences that it offers are unlike anything previously available to the public. Still, trying to argue its merits is impossible without actually putting the drat thing on your head so go to a demo if you can before dismissing it. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 19:07 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:It is compared to television which is what you were comparing it to.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:I don't think he was trying to compare TV to VR. I think he was saying the iterative change from earlier HDTV->3d tv is similar to the iterative change from earlier crummier VR -> current VR. Which seems valid to me. Oh, that makes more sense. Still, there hasn't been a consumer-focused VR HMD that actually worked until now, the only ones that were usable were consigned to labs and the military due to their expense and even then they weren't much good. It's like saying that video games won't be successful because Computer Space wasn't a hit. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Its overhyped, but its not bs either (looking at you 3d tvs) I do not expect it to die off, personally. I think quality augmented reality tech is where the big money is at though in terms of this sort of tech, which has little to do with gaming but its vaguely related. However for VR as the generations continue there will be lighter, cheaper, more convenient options that people will use to enhance their normal gaming experience rather than the all or nothing scenario we are in now. For example you might not be interested now, but would you be interested if quality VR was in a wireless package as easy to handle as a large pair of sunglasses? Say that just sat on a small charging dock on your desk and you could seamlessly go back and forth between your monitor and game depending on what you were doing (even within the same game!), for $200?. This sort of thing would appeal to a whole lot more people and its not at all unreasonable to imagine in the near future. Also VR has very real applications in the non gaming world. One thing that has surprised me is the initial heavy push to adopt VR tech with the (relatively) huge amount of resources sunk into it for something that most people wouldn't be interested in on a wide scale for several generations at least.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
I'm not sure wearing a bulky headset and waving your arms around is the future, but there are so many opportunities for different kinds of experiences and tools using VR or mixed-reality, in a few years it's going to start to really take off I think.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Oh, that makes more sense. Still, there hasn't been a consumer-focused VR HMD that actually worked until now, the only ones that were usable were consigned to labs and the military due to their expense and even then they weren't much good. It's like saying that video games won't be successful because Computer Space wasn't a hit. Like I already noted, I wasn't comparing the content or the experience, just the way that the marketing and drive is being used. It's a push from industry as a "hit new product" that consumers aren't biting onto. And there have been several attempts at consumer-focused VR setups - I remember terrible VR setups in arcades as well as the Virtual Boy, plus something in the late 90s that was basically four projectors and a very tight space. Heck, in the 90s the mall down the street had a re-worked version of Wolfenstein 3D that worked with their VR setup that you'd pay $1 for 10 minutes of play in. Mozi posted:I'm not sure wearing a bulky headset and waving your arms around is the future, but there are so many opportunities for different kinds of experiences and tools using VR or mixed-reality, in a few years it's going to start to really take off I think. I think it'll go places, but not at the current price point. $800 to $1,000 for something is not a lure and people in general are ignoring the hype train. This technology will need a decent bit of maturing and a lot of cost reduction before V/mixed reality experiences will start to take off.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Like I already noted, I wasn't comparing the content or the experience, just the way that the marketing and drive is being used. It's a push from industry as a "hit new product" that consumers aren't biting onto. Is there a source for this because they are projected to sell millions of them in one year (and im sure they are a healthy way into this by now). And considering how this is like the least appealing generation there will be, it seems that people are really biting into the hype train.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
MisterZimbu posted:From my experience and what I've heard from others, motion sickness is a lot less likely in actual simulators with a cockpit, since there's something there to put your movement in context. Especially true in racing games, since you're making 1:1 movements with a steering wheel. I ran a demo with a DK2 for about 4 hours, with around 30 people trying it out. Only 2 got kind-of sick. One of them was so enthralled she didn't care. She came out sweating like a pig though. Obviously it depends a lot on the content. I intentionally choose a demo that was slower and on rails to give them an easy experience. But VR isn't even making a majority of people sick. I'm totally loving biased though and really want to get a headset for myself. Waiting until the second round of headsets start coming out at, hopefully, a lower price with some of the issues worked out.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I think a lot of people drastically overestimate people's tolerance for VR headgear. One of the most-cited frustrations with 3D television was that it required electronic glasses to work. To be fair, the earliest iteration of the 2011-rebirth-era 3D glasses were the perfect storm of awfulness—expensive, bulky, heavy, and corded (holy poo poo)—which did a lot to sour consumers on it regardless of future improvements. But there's still a key problem that applies to VR: people don't like poo poo on their faces. Like, at all. Not even a little bit. Regular eyeglasses are an exception, because they're medically necessary, lightweight, they can take a surprising amount of punishment despite that lightness and a form that necessitates a lot of stress points, and if they break, either the warranty or insurance will cover you and you can literally stroll into any ophthalmologist's place and get a free replacement. (Which is exactly what I did when my pair broke a couple weeks ago.) Brand also doesn't matter; any brand of lens will fit any brand of frames, and there are loads of generic clip-on tinted lenses if you don't want to splurge on prescription sunglasses. VR will have literally none of these advantages. This is a very bad thing, because people's frame of reference for any poo poo that goes over their eyes is "So this is like a fancy pair of glasses, right?" Tech geeks will put up with anything for the latest tech, and they'll understand that VR is not a pair of bulky glasses but a surprisingly slim computer with a close-in screen, but this will not be how the average consumer* thinks about these things. To the average consumer, VR is exactly like the 3D glasses they didn't buy: literally none of the advantages of normal eyeglasses, and all the of downsides of computers (i.e. requires careful babysitting of batteries/cords, software updates, compatibility issues, and it will guaranteed at some point poo poo itself and you'll have to get your tech-savvy friend to fix it, or horror or horrors, you'll need to call tech support). Now, I'm not saying VR will never catch on. I'm saying that the average consumer will need a lot more convincing before they buy it. Tech geeks think this is VR's iPhone moment, where VR will explode in popularity. It's not. This is VR's PalmPilot and Windows Mobile moment—the tech's acceptable and useful by geek standards, but it'll remain for hardcore users only until the tech (and the marketing, for that matter) is far, far, far more refined. *Before someone says that gamers aren't the average consumer: yes they are. Gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry and games move tens of millions of units per year. This isn't the nineties anymore. My brother plays FPS games. He still texts me for help troubleshooting his computer. He did not know what an SSD was until I explained it to him.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Is there a source for this because they are projected to sell millions of them in one year (and im sure they are a healthy way into this by now). And considering how this is like the least appealing generation there will be, it seems that people are really biting into the hype train. Those projections are by analysts and shareholders, which are people. Who also projected iPhone-like sales of the iWatch, projected a long term increase in PC sales in the 00s, and thought multiple iterations of HD television would bolster sales - not to mention the "every single person will continually replace their iPads" shareholder thought process and the let down they had from that. I have seen those projections range from 97 million to 200 million by 2020. In context, that's Between 88,000 and 183,000 units per day for three years. Computers, themselves, move about 750,000 units per day worldwide (most of those are not able to drive VR glasses, by the way) and we are to expect that the adoption rate of VR will be between 11.7% and 24.4% of PC buyers? One-Quarter of PC buyers? Couple this with the fact that Gear VR reports 1 million users as of the end of March (~5 months of operations = ~7,000 units per day - granted different platforms released at different times) and I consider those projected number to be insanely high. There is an old joke I apply to these sorts of projections: Make a product for $200. Sell 5,000 units. Uncork the champagne, you're a millionaire.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Those projections are by analysts and shareholders, which are people. Who also projected iPhone-like sales of the iWatch, projected a long term increase in PC sales in the 00s, and thought multiple iterations of HD television would bolster sales - not to mention the "every single person will continually replace their iPads" shareholder thought process and the let down they had from that. I have seen those projections range from 97 million to 200 million by 2020. In context, that's Between 88,000 and 183,000 units per day for three years. Computers, themselves, move about 750,000 units per day worldwide (most of those are not able to drive VR glasses, by the way) and we are to expect that the adoption rate of VR will be between 11.7% and 24.4% of PC buyers? One-Quarter of PC buyers? Even 1 million units of a weird inconvenient nerdy rear end first generation thing like VR is about 950,000 more than I'd have ever guessed even 2 years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Except that it's not "a completely new and different experience." It's a small iterative step on attempts of VR throughout the last 30 years, almost every single step of which has had very limited success. If you are saying that any of the VRs are "a completely new and different experience" you are either young or you simply haven't been paying attention. It sounds like you are really emotionally invested in VR not being a thing? Like you brought up the Virtual Boy and everything. Virtual Boy is to the Vive as Space Wars is to Half Life. VR gaming isn't off the ground yet but it's finally got hardware that's actually capable of doing so and it's picking up speed big time. Arsten posted:Problem is, there's no compelling reason to upgrade to a VR-Capable system if you don't already want to make love to the technology. You have to spend, what, $400 on a video card in an already-good computer system or $300 for a VR-capable console and then drop $500+ on the VR kit in addition? $200 is the entry price for a VR-capable GPU, and the #1 most popular GPU on the Steam Hardware Survey already is VR capable. The market for video game hardware is starting to stratify big time. The low-end market (<$200) is using integrated graphics for their DOTA and loving off to play on consoles for gaming. Meanwhile the high-end market is taking off like crazy - all the major players have noticed that the mainstream is now willing to pay $200-300 and there's a decently-sized market for high-end ($500+) hardware. Last-gen mainstream hardware (290/390, 290X/390X, 970, 980, 780 Ti) is already able to handle VR, plus the high-end crowd too (980 Ti, Fury, Fury X). Everything within the next gen will be able to handle it - Polaris 11 is reportedly aimed squarely at the minimum-spec for VR gaming (~390-tier performance) at the sub-$200 price point Plus the console people can play PSVR, and that opens it up to the entire PS4 market. $400 for PSVR is a lot of money but I think that's within a reasonable stretch for many people. After all, they're willing to drop that much every couple years on a new console, or a new television. PS4K will likely actually be able to drive a Rift or a Vive outright, all on its own. quote:And what do you get? Like six games, half of which look like they were created with a version of the software used to create stick-man instructional videos in Portal 2? And, what if you drop that money and - much like super HD televisions - there aren't enough other adopters of the technology to warrant developers even bothering with it? You just spent upto a grand to have something to sit in your closet. The Oculus is the much less compelling of the two technologies, to be honest. Being able to move around in VR is a killer feature for immersion, and Oculus was blindsided by how much better it could be. It takes a long, long time for serious games to go from start to completion. I'd say a minimum 1 year development cycle for something that isn't indie-quality, realistically more like 2-3. Hardware has hardly even hit the market yet, give it some time. I am concerned that the minimum spec is quite minimal. You are rendering basically 1440p at 90hz, that's pretty challenging for low-end hardware and Minecraft-quality graphics lower that burden somewhat. This generation is going to pack a lot more punch at any given price point and hopefully we can get some decent graphics. Regardless though, I win either way because we get more powerful GPUs that can drive higher resolutions at greater framerates. 1440p or greater at 27" owns so hard, and they're well within the reach of average consumers nowadays. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:08 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
I used to roll my eyes at VR stuff like most of the folks in the thread, but what changed it for me was a demo of the next-next gen stuff at Oculus -- got a chance to visit and try it out, and some of their scenarios / demo reel gave me honest to god vertigo. There was a segment on the top of a skyscraper and I was freaking the gently caress out, looked solid. Of course, this headset had a shitload of wires coming off it, and it was an absolutely insane host machine (4 GPUs IIRC) running the demo, so we're a ways out yet. Additionally, like someone said earlier, they don't have movement factored in (yet) -- all the demos were on rails while you could look around.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Couple this with the fact that Gear VR reports 1 million users as of the end of March (~5 months of operations = ~7,000 units per day - granted different platforms released at different times) and I consider those projected number to be insanely high. The Gear VR is basically a headset with a pair of lenses that you strap a cellphone onto. The cellphone provides the screen and the gyroscope/accelerometer. So it's the lowest-cost (and lowest-quality) of all the options because you already have most of the cost sitting in your pocket. Once you own the cellphone it's a $100 upgrade, and I'm sure they're making money hand-over-fist there. Again, it's like $10 worth of plastic tops, no electronics needed. It's actually kind of neat because you can walk around freely without dragging a cord around behind you, unlike any of the other products. You don't even need a fixed playspace like a Vive, you could just go play with it outside in a soccer field or whatever. But, it obviously imposes severe limitations on graphical quality and it'll eat through your battery in no time flat.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Even 1 million units of a weird inconvenient nerdy rear end first generation thing like VR is about 950,000 more than I'd have ever guessed even 2 years ago. It shouldn't have been a surprise. There are something like 250 or 300 million PCs in the US and estimates of the enthusiast user population range from 3 to 8%. Using both low numbers, that means that 7.5 million people are probably chomping at the bit for it in the US (being able afford them is an unconsidered matter to this simple set of calculations)....but that's a far cry from 100 to 200m units sold - even worldwide. With guesstimates of about 1 billion active computer users (and assuming that enthusiast population remains roughly the same percentage) that means that you have a potential total market of ~ 30m to 80m. They are projecting that fully 1/10th to 1/5th of the computer owners in the world will adopt a pricey VR solution. One million users is far short of this goal and is, really, nothing in what the "millions" of units to be sold is projecting. Paul MaudDib posted:It sounds like you are really emotionally invested in VR not being a thing? Like you brought up the Virtual Boy and everything.  As for your question, I'm not emotionally invested one way or another (and I never bought a virtual boy - when I play tested one, it hurt my eyes). But when you go "LOOK! TREES! That's like THE FIRST GENERATION OF TREES!" you are either ignorant or too young to understand scale. I am merely showing that the numbers are using rose tinted glasses while looking forward - which has been done repeatedly in technology since the mid 00s because technology isn't a huge growth sector outside of a few shining stars. Paul MaudDib posted:Virtual Boy is to the Vive as Space Wars is to Half Life. VR gaming isn't off the ground yet but it's finally got hardware that's actually capable of doing so and it's picking up speed big time.  Except that each step of the way, we've had the hardware capability of driving VR. You think that even a "not VR ready" card from a few years ago couldn't drive two simultaneous 720p screens of Half Life 1 to make it 3D? Heck, local co-op has been a thing in every console - you can't tell me you couldn't have piped that to a display via HDMI cable before right this instant.As for "picking up speed big time" I haven't seen evidence of this. I've seen never ending hype for a year over the headsets set to release and tech bloggers slobbering on them as they give rave reviews - but the unit sales haven't been anywhere near what any projection has said it would be. Paul MaudDib posted:$200 is the entry price for a VR-capable GPU, and the #1 most popular GPU on the Steam Hardware Survey already is VR capable. Paul MaudDib posted:The market for video game hardware is starting to stratify big time. The low-end market (<$200) is using integrated graphics for their DOTA and loving off to play on consoles for gaming. Meanwhile the high-end market is taking off like crazy - all the major players have noticed that the mainstream is now willing to pay $200-300 and there's a decently-sized market for high-end ($500+) hardware. Paul MaudDib posted:Plus the console people can play PSVR, and that opens it up to the entire PS4 market. $400 for PSVR is a lot of money but I think that's within a reasonable stretch for many people. After all, they're willing to drop that much every couple years on a new console, or a new television. PS4K will likely actually be able to drive a Rift or a Vive outright, all on its own. Paul MaudDib posted:The Oculus is the much less compelling of the two technologies, to be honest. Being able to move around in VR is a killer feature for immersion, and Oculus was blindsided by how much better it could be. Paul MaudDib posted:It takes a long, long time for serious games to go from start to completion. I'd say a minimum 1 year development cycle for something that isn't indie-quality, realistically more like 2-3. Hardware has hardly even hit the market yet, give it some time. Paul MaudDib posted:I am concerned that the minimum spec is quite minimal. You are rendering basically 1440p at 90hz, that's pretty challenging for low-end hardware and Minecraft-quality graphics lower that burden somewhat. This generation is going to pack a lot more punch at any given price point and hopefully we can get some decent graphics. Paul MaudDib posted:The Gear VR is basically a headset with a pair of lenses that you strap a cellphone onto. The cellphone provides the screen and the gyroscope/accelerometer. So it's the lowest-cost (and lowest-quality) of all the options because you already have most of the cost sitting in your pocket. And note that we are talking about the cheapest option in the field. Massively increasing the cost for 'true' VR isn't exactly going to entice people to jump on board.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Arsten posted:
Half-Life VR has actually been a thing for a couple years now. However, "a FPS in VR" is generally the least-immersive kind of experience that VR can offer. You really have to design around the movements and controllers for a good experience, ports never fully exploit their new platform. It's not just driving two 720p sessions of Half-Life though, you also have to drive both sessions at a 90fps minimum framerate (not average) or else the latency can cause nausea. As someone who upgraded relatively recently from a 2012-era PC (Phenom II and Radeon 7850) the hardware actually was not there. I was lucky to stay above 90 fps minimum in TF2. In general, refresh rates above 60hz were an incredibly niche item just a few years ago, now they're down to the bargain market ($140 for a refurb GN246HL). We actually regressed there for about a decade - 120hz refresh used to be very commonly supported on CRTs. But fast refresh is a key component of VR that doesn't make you sick or give you a headache like the Virtual Boy did. quote:And you are missing the headset. So instead of $800 to $1,000, it's $700 to $900. Woo. No, the low end will go to the PSVR and play it on the PS4 they already own, so it'll be $400. The people who would buy a $600-800 headset for PC likely either already have a sufficient GPU (many do) or aren't going to be dissuaded by an extra $100 (selling their current GPU and buying a $200 one). And like I said, the PS4K will probably be capable of driving a Vive all on its own. quote:Most console gamers to upgrade the consoles every few years, but televisions are secondary considerations and are generally random purchases. Very few console players obsess over the specifics of their TVs. Some will go to a random blog/forum/w/e and go "Whats the best TV for the <console> for under <amount>" but most will just pick up the biggest flat screen they can get on sale within their budget when their last TV breaks. They don't necessarily buy them regularly but they are capable of buying a new TV or a console if they want. People will piss and moan but if Sony announced they were launching the PS5 available June 1st, 90% of them would have one by Christmas. The PSVR fits in the same budget segment, it's out of impulse buy territory but it's not prohibitively expensive for what it is. Hideo Kojima or someone will figure out a killer app and then everyone will have to have it. quote:So one of the options will sell worse than the cardboard-box-over-your-phone? I think the Gear and the PSVR are actually likely to sell more units for now. The Oculus and Vive are both "premium" products whereas the Gear and PSVR are positioned in the consumer market segment. The only problem I will note is that the Gear assumes you have one of about 4 different Samsung phones, it's not universally compatible. I agree price is a barrier and 100m units sold by 2020 sounds really high to me, but I could see 10m or 25m units pretty easily especially once second-gen hardware launches. Hopefully it'll be a bit cheaper but either way once it launches people will flip used first-gen headsets and it'll be pretty universally accessible. I don't agree that a smaller market size necessarily implies that the media available will be of inferior quality though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:17 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I haven't seen any VR-only tech that would get me to spend a lot of money on it. Same with 3D movies, which are becoming increasingly difficult to avoid
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
It's next 'next big thing!' that only turbonerds will care about, as this thread suggests.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
tazjin posted:I haven't seen any VR-only tech that would get me to spend a lot of money on it. Same with 3D movies, which are becoming increasingly difficult to avoid FWIW I actually prefer 2D movies because the resolution is higher and 3D movies seem to have exactly three depths: foreground, midground, and background, except for jumpscares that come straight at you. Also the images don't converge unless you're looking exactly 100% dead on at the screen. Five degrees either way and I see double. My neck gets tired holding my head 100% motionless for an hour and a half. VR games have the advantage that objects can be at depths that feel natural since they're rendered by the game instead of composited after the fact, and you can move your head any time you want (although in direct mouse-and-keyboard FPS ports I actually found myself tending to look downwards and having to periodically lift my head). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Half-Life VR has actually been a thing for a couple years now. However, "a FPS in VR" is generally the least-immersive kind of experience that VR can offer. You really have to design around the movements and controllers for a good experience, ports never fully exploit their new platform. As you yourself note, 120Hz was common - then the LCDs came around and one of the first things they did to make them cheap was to put just about the shittiest hardware in them - and then double-down later in a race for thinness. Both of those trends were driven by the consumer market - wanting cheap and thin. Once you don't have to drive 120Hz, you can also leave it off your GPU because why not make an extra 6cents per card? And TF2 is very different and more intensive than HalfLife 1. (Were you thinking of TFC?) Paul MaudDib posted:No, the low end will go to the PSVR and play it on the PS4 they already own, so it'll be $400. The people who would buy a $600-800 headset for PC likely either already have a sufficient GPU (many do) or aren't going to be dissuaded by an extra $100 (selling their current GPU and buying a $200 one). Paul MaudDib posted:They don't necessarily buy them regularly but they are capable of buying a new TV or a console if they want. People will piss and moan but if Sony announced they were launching the PS5 available June 1st, 90% of them would have one by Christmas. The PSVR fits in the same budget segment, it's out of impulse buy territory but it's not prohibitively expensive for what it is. Hideo Kojima or someone will figure out a killer app and then everyone will have to have it. See, VR has been demoed for YEARS everywhere in every concievable way and application - capable of 90fps+ and everything that is capable right now. I've seen combat training rings, medical devices, computer games, and whatever else have you. It hasn't taken off for the same issues we have right now, which is price, bulky head boxes, choice flood, options for use, and space needs in general. Paul MaudDib posted:I think the Gear and the PSVR are actually likely to sell more units for now. The Oculus and Vive are both "premium" products whereas the Gear and PSVR are positioned in the consumer market segment. The only problem I will note is that the Gear assumes you have one of about 4 different Samsung phones, it's not universally compatible. Paul MaudDib posted:I agree price is a barrier and 100m units sold by 2020 sounds really high to me, but I could see 10m or 25m units pretty easily especially once second-gen hardware launches. Hopefully it'll be a bit cheaper but either way once it launches people will flip used first-gen headsets and it'll be pretty universally accessible. Paul MaudDib posted:I don't agree that a smaller market size necessarily implies that the media available will be of inferior quality though. If VR hits that sweet spot and hangs there for a year to 18 months, VR will absolutely explode - and I will have been wrong (and I will buy my VR Glasses for Fallout 5 / TESV6). But most of what I see is just a tanker-ship sized drop of marketing cash and very little to back it up - both in general consumption enthusiasm and in options for utilizing the technology. Paul MaudDib posted:IF YOU SEE ME POSTING REALLY POORLY, CONSIDER IT AS A FAILURE OF THE HEURISTIC SIGNATURE TO NOT PREDICT MY lovely, ILL-INFORMED POST.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Personally, I'm burning for the screen resolution to double a few times(sic). The resolution necessary to approach the media experience we have today with screens 6'' to 2' away from our faces is a far cry from what we're currently capable of: http://imgur.com/a/lerfd . We just recently reached the point where you effectively can't see pixelation at reasonable distance(720p to 1440) http://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png . When one of these headsets can be used as a desktop environment, that's when we see wide adoption as gaming and later productivity tools. As is, you can't read normal sized text. If we project the current trajectory of resolution increase we might hit the target in 4 years, but these things tend to hit a wall(moore's law choked in 2012). I would kill for the ability to have 90 degrees of desktop space.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
VR will be awesome once I can play an FPS for real in it, until then, it's all wireframe garbage! In all honesty it's cool that VR is starting to move forward again, but as arsten has said, the tech has a ways to go before it reaches MASS adoption and also before it can drive a truly VR experience.Arsten posted:Derail: What the hell went on with you 10 or so people that got red painted about antivirus? Someone got butthurt and spent money in an attempt to alleviate the pain in their rectum.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Not designing for something doesn't mean you don't have the capability. Having your butter knife get bent by a brick doesn't mean steel can't hold up buildings. The technology was not there (at mainstream prices) to have fast-refresh LCD panels until recently. DisplayPort 1.2 wasn't approved until 2009, wasn't in mainstream GPUs until 2012 or so, and adoption in mainstream monitors was even slower. HDMI (1.4) cannot carry enough bandwidth for high-refresh. DVI Dual Link only went so far - about 120hz at 1440p I think. Fast-refresh CRTs were generally driven at 1024x768, 1080p is 2.5x as many pixels to push. I do agree with you that cheap+thin drove trends though, but there were legitimate technical challenges there. I wish people would have been willing to pay for it, because we've been stuck at HD-ish resolution for like a decade and it's only within the last couple years we've finally broken loose with 1440p and 4K. e: Not only that, but fast-refresh smartphone screens as opposed to full monitors. TF2 is what I consider to be a reasonable target for a low-end game. It's consistently one of the most popular games on Steam (measured by active players) and it's close to a decade old now, and it works on a pretty wide range of hardware. OG Half-Life looks like garbage nowadays, it's no more challenging to play than those titles you bitched about. It's minecraft-tier graphics. I don't know if you've played it recently but without high-res texture packs or Black Mesa it's pretty unbearable. quote:See, VR has been demoed for YEARS everywhere in every concievable way and application - capable of 90fps+ and everything that is capable right now. I've seen combat training rings, medical devices, computer games, and whatever else have you. It hasn't taken off for the same issues we have right now, which is price, bulky head boxes, choice flood, options for use, and space needs in general. There's a world of difference between a specialty industrial product and a mainstream consumer product though. Some VR headset for the Air Force that costs $100k a pop is not a realistic consumer product, that's the cost of a small house in a lot of places. A $400-800 headset is a luxury but it's a viable product that people can actually afford. Someone earlier mentioned AR, and I think that's a huge moneymaker. Airplane mechanics and doctors can have their checklist and diagrams overlaid while they're working, you bet your rear end that will sell. I'm actually super pissed the MS Holo devkits are $25k apiece, I would love to play with one. I just also think consumer VR will sell. quote:I'd get behind 10m units world wide, 25m is pushing it for what I've seen thus far - in my opinion. And this gen to the next can be a doozy of a step. The flippers might not be able to flip to VR hardware itself (the Consoles/GPUs will probably flip nicely though), depending on how initial year sales and consumer needs go. If the first 1 million adopters are all using the VR to simulate their real dolls coming to life while they bang them, then I'll bet that the next generation will come with some personal cleaner and no one will want your scary last gen hardware. One thing I actually really dislike is the foam padding with no covers, the Vive involves a lot more athletic activity. And for demos where a bunch of people are using it in a row, it would be really nice to wipe it down with Lysol in between. Someone is already selling jersey or vinyl pads to cover those up, I literally ordered one before I preordered a Vive (they had a month-long lead time). I personally think the used units will sell fine. DK1 and DK2 are still selling for more than their launch price right now. It all depends on if there's a bunch of exclusive new features that some hot-selling game uses. quote:Derail: What the hell went on with you 10 or so people that got red painted about antivirus? YOSPOS hates antivirus really bad, I got a red title from them debating it in the infosec thread. Then someone else posted about it in the "a ticket came in" thread and they had to chase the red dot and got themselves red titles too 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:40 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
gtech posted:Personally, I'm burning for the screen resolution to double a few times(sic). The resolution necessary to approach the media experience we have today with screens 6'' to 2' away from our faces is a far cry from what we're currently capable of: http://imgur.com/a/lerfd . We just recently reached the point where you effectively can't see pixelation at reasonable distance(720p to 1440) http://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png . When one of these headsets can be used as a desktop environment, that's when we see wide adoption as gaming and later productivity tools. As is, you can't read normal sized text. If we project the current trajectory of resolution increase we might hit the target in 4 years, but these things tend to hit a wall(moore's law choked in 2012). I would kill for the ability to have 90 degrees of desktop space. Right now the problem isn't the resolution so much as the optics. It's hard to take a screen that's 3/4 inch away from your eye, and focus every square mm of it at optical-infinity. The center of my DK2 was very sharp but the corners sucked rear end, probably because the distance from the lens to the corners was farther than the distance from the lens to the center. I think you could get way, way better corner sharpness with a screen with a spherical profile (like a curved TV except also curved top-to-bottom). The consumer equipment also has aspheric lenses that should be able to focus the corners better, but it's tough to do. It's sad that Luckey Palmer spent his engineering time rediscovering the concept of inertial platform drift, because this is the kind of stuff that's actually needing to be solved. I applaud increasing resolution in general though. 27" 1440p is loving fantastic in dual-screen. We were stuck at 1080p for like 10 years and it sucked hard. Working in a VR space would probably be pretty neat. I tried Virtual Desktop and it was really nice, because you could move your head and put the stuff you wanted to see in the sharp spot of your headset, run multiple monitors, etc. I want that, except with virtual desktops that don't need to be tied to physical monitors.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
I got a Gear VR, bought it here in Hong Kong with the Samsung S7 Edge for about $775. I forsee more and more mobile versions of VR coming out so I am looking to drive my company that deals in VOD to try and start to develop more concepts for the platform. There is already a Netflix app on it that is similar to what we make for our main product. At the moment the resolution and device limitation in that order are the worst points of Gear VR, but it is great to see how it is almost ready for the mass consumer market. This thread has been insightful in that I don't really need to rush to learn everything there is about VR yet, but rather to wait and see the next gen hardware. At the moment to me it feels VR has a limitless potential providing the hardware is ready for it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:
Interestingly enough, Carmack said in a keynote that he spent a lot of time working on the corners. Specifically it was about nausea inducing flicker. The corners would flicker more noticeably than the center of the screen. Perhaps flexible screens, which are much closer to consumer production, will be the solution.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The technology was not there (at mainstream prices) to have fast-refresh LCD panels until recently. DisplayPort 1.2 wasn't approved until 2009, wasn't in mainstream GPUs until 2012 or so, and adoption in mainstream monitors was even slower. HDMI (1.4) cannot carry enough bandwidth for high-refresh. DVI Dual Link only went so far - about 120hz at 1440p I think. Paul MaudDib posted:Fast-refresh CRTs were generally driven at 1024x768, 1080p is 2.5x as many pixels to push. I do agree with you that cheap+thin drove trends though, but there were legitimate technical challenges there. I wish people would have been willing to pay for it, because we've been stuck at HD-ish resolution for like a decade and it's only within the last couple years we've finally broken loose with 1440p and 4K.  Paul MaudDib posted:e: Not only that, but fast-refresh smartphone screens as opposed to full monitors. Paul MaudDib posted:TF2 is what I consider to be a reasonable target for a low-end game. It's consistently one of the most popular games on Steam (measured by active players) and it's close to a decade old now, and it works on a pretty wide range of hardware. OG Half-Life looks like garbage nowadays, it's no more challenging to play than those titles you bitched about. It's minecraft-tier graphics. I don't know if you've played it recently but without high-res texture packs or Black Mesa it's pretty unbearable. Paul MaudDib posted:There's a world of difference between a specialty industrial product and a mainstream consumer product though. Some VR headset for the Air Force that costs $100k a pop is not a realistic consumer product, that's the cost of a small house in a lot of places. A $400-800 headset is a luxury but it's a viable product that people can actually afford. Paul MaudDib posted:Someone earlier mentioned AR, and I think that's a huge moneymaker. Airplane mechanics and doctors can have their checklist and diagrams overlaid while they're working, you bet your rear end that will sell. I'm actually super pissed the MS Holo devkits are $25k apiece, I would love to play with one. I just also think consumer VR will sell. Paul MaudDib posted:I personally think the used units will sell fine. DK1 and DK2 are still selling for more than their launch price right now. It all depends on if there's a bunch of exclusive new features that some hot-selling game uses. I get that you are rooting for it - and I never said it "would not sell" I've been stating that the market is going to be enthusiasts and not some sort of break-away iPhone-killing success story. Paul MaudDib posted:YOSPOS hates antivirus really bad, I got a red title from them debating it in the infosec thread. Then someone else posted about it in the "a ticket came in" thread and they had to chase the red dot and got themselves red titles too MF_James posted:Someone got butthurt and spent money in an attempt to alleviate the pain in their rectum. Over Anti-Virus? Are you sure you didn't sneak into their rooms and replace their waifu real dolls with a Peter Norton real doll or something?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Just going to leave this here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqf2t8pHJE
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:09
|
|
