It did sell millions. It should have been around the 6 million mark on the PS3 to Microsoft's 18 for Kinect. The interesting side is we are still reliant on the Move even now so it obviously hasn't peaked yet.
Polygon: This is the future of first-person shooters, but it's not quite ready for you
- Thread starter News Feed
- Start date
It did sell millions. It should have been around the 6 million mark on the PS3 to Microsoft's 18 for Kinect. The interesting side is we are still reliant on the Move even now so it obviously hasn't peaked yet.
Its a lot more technical than that. It would be nice if it were that straightforward, though.
Microsoft's partnership with Oculus and Valve is equivalent to you renting. All you're doing is holding onto it. Nothing is owned nor exclusive to you. You merely have a simple standard that works for everyone.
Yeah, my data is a bit old but I just wanted to get a figure since some people think that it was probably just a few hundred thousand units.
Your whole tunnel illusion only works if someone is fully experiencing it by both looking and walking through it. A person's eyes/balance gets all confused.
There is zero confusion if one of the senses is not being used. If you get strapped to a wheelchair and ride through it, you won't get mesmerized. If you walk through it blindfolded, you won't get messed up either. But combine the two and people are falling over.
Sitting on a couch and playing a game will not be immersive like looking/walking through a fancy tunnel, since all you're doing is looking and not coordinating actual movement to go with it.
That's some kind of VR immersion. You're playing a game walking around, but your legs are actually propped up on the ottoman. You want to jump, press A. You want to crouch, hold down A. Want to turn around and go the other way? No problem, press the analog stick L or R. That's some VR.
Having a VR thing taped to your head and sitting on a couch is similar to watching a movie at the theatre and you get burned with one of the close up seats where your viewpoint is 100% screen. And in that example you don't even have a thing on your head with cables draping down the side. And also ignoring the fact anytime anyone puts on goggles or mask, it can get hot over time. The more the gadget is flush/sealed against your face like safety goggles, the hotter it gets.
Trust me. Nobody thinks it's virtual reality sitting row 1 at the theatre.
Last edited:
What? Oh goodness....
Ok, I can only chalk this up (your entire description) as you having absolutely no experience from neither of the two. In fact, it sounds like you are trying to be humorous more than anything because I seriously don't believe you can be that misinformed.
My advice to you, if you have a compatible phone, get yourself the Google Box for VR. It's very reasonable, I think, for you.
poor guy....
Here's a coaching tip: If you are going to bring up those fancy tunnels, at least have experience going through one of them.
But hey, if think sitting on a couch with your legs kicked up on a table is VR and the same as walking through one of those funky tunnels with your own eyes and legs, more power to you.
Coaching tip #2: Just because you are a Sony fan and likely eat up marketing drivel, don't eat up the VR PR marketing.
Final tip: Go visit your local science centre. It probably has one of those tunnels.
Last edited:
IMO, good stereoscopic 3D could have been the truly happy medium for games but was cut short before it really had a chance to shine. I really wish Sony at least, would have pushed through what they have started. Games in 3D > movies in 3D, imo.
Ironically, all of the negatives people who haven't truly experienced good 3D at home have thrown at it like needing more rendering power and wearing goofy glasses are forgotten about with an emerging medium that has the exact same issues, tenfold.
I wish I had a chance to see how well 3D could be done on modern consoles on my projector screen. People liked to make fun of the idea that 2 or more ppl would be walking around the house with 3D glasses. Just 1 person with VR goggles, sweating and bruised up from knocking into the coffee table is a hellova lot worse, imo.
I admit that I think VR is neat. I just don't want to be completely cut off from this reality, unless it is extremely carefully crafted. We are not ready for that yet, imo... this is why I propose VR-lite through Hololens.
You'll never get true VR.
Even with the best gear, someone having an entire football field to move around in and the most lightweight and wireless VR headset, it'll still be a far cry from reality.
Even something simple like the game showing there is an obstacle in front of you. Even if you had the room to actually walk all over the place, you would just walk through the VR graphics in your helmet as that big rock isn't really there. Now the game may force upon you a fake animation that you fell, but in reality you didn't at all.
That's probably why all those motion control fighting games don't work well. On one hand, a gamer is flailing away at his speed. But the game is trying to calculate animations and video game fatigue for the character when in real life you are not tired. You are punching at twice the speed as the game, so it looks like it's not registering, but really it might be but is faking in fatigue or damage making your guy move at half rate. Doesn't correlate.
Same goes for gun shooting. The game can fake in recoil, but in real life the gun is perfectly still.
I had my chance at VR -- sold my Oculus DK2. I played the entire Alien:Isolation game using it. Got sick pretty much 80% of the time. Assetto Corsa was even worse. Meh.
Agreed, it's not really ready for this generation of consoles. They definitely need more power to handle the fps.
Agreed, it's not really ready for this generation of consoles. They definitely need more power to handle the fps.
Ok, for the obvious side, there are no sensors or at least those you would need for VR tracking (gyroscope, accelerometers). It would basically be what Intel tried to insinuate about current VR in one of his prior post (just sticking a tv screen up to your face) with no head tracking. Thus your experience would mimic that of a tv picture just following your head around. LoL!
The next is processing power. To achieve VR, you need a lot of it while AR takes very little due to you having to turn its res and frames way up for the user to play comfortably. AR merely displays 3D objects throughout your actual living area, which cuts down on a lot of this.
Last edited:
I believe that's the beauty of having a closed platform exclusively built around its own HMD; you can easily code to the strengths of that platform rather than everyone elses.
Its interesting you brought that up because it reminded me of this:
Basically, you are merging VR with AR
VR, lol. The future of first person shooters drops on 11-6-15. Black Ops 3 baby. It's all you need.
As for the head tracking, don't you think that Hololens already does this? I mean, those holograms are anything but static. You can move completely around the hologram and see all sides of it. You turn your head and it does not move with you, it stays put. Not only that, but it goes further, tracking where you are in your own space and even what types of surfaces you have. I think this is well beyond any other head tracking I've ever seen. It tracks EVERYTHING!
As for the computing, it would need to be tethered to something, obviously. I wouldn't expect the entire world to be created in the "HPU", but I am still wondering if some near objects can be added by the device as a display plane, as DX12/Xbox One is capable of using.
Thanks for that. I was actually going to suggest this type of device (if it's what I think it is) as the best alternative to the passive AR/VR like Hololens. I believe that Leap Motion is a company making Kinect-like motion tracking. This seems to be an HMD similar to Oculus, but with ir/cmd cameras on the front to overlay that into the display when needed. I was really hoping Oculus would figure this out but I'm glad someone else did. Maybe Oculus can use MS's camera tech for Rift2 with their partnership, but it's a shame that they did not straighten this out first, IMO.
What you're referring to there is positional tracking of your environment. Basically put, Kinect has been implemented into the visor to scan the entire room. Something like GPS was added to let the display remember where you put what. This is why it never moves once you place it in a particular place. There are no sensors or cameras to track reference points to the person wearing the headset, though.
Because Hololens is a camera, it is pulling the bare minimum quality of that image from it's source. When you are talking VR the bare minimum is not enough if that feed is going to be right up on the persons face.
There is one called Nimble sense as well. But i think this is a better way you would merge VR and AR without having to settle.
Last edited:
Has anyone tried taking LSD before trying VR? I think it could be beneficial to the experience...
