Personally I think the 40" will be the best selling one, especially if people have the chance to actually see it in action. 32" and 27" are far too small at 100% DPI, and windows has very bad support for DPI scaling.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Seiki Announces 28", 32", 40" 4K Monitors with HDMI 2.0 and Displayport 1.3
- Thread starter Wag
- Start date
Personally I think the 40" will be the best selling one, especially if people have the chance to actually see it in action. 32" and 27" are far too small at 100% DPI, and windows has very bad support for DPI scaling.
I see a number of posts of people that seem to think 40" is too big. I trust what they actually mean to say is the 40" would be too big "for them" and for their specific needs / use case.
I personally don't agree with this but I do understand that many people rarely look beyond their wants and needs.
There are some people that can really benefit from 4K without the need of scaling and 40" is a great starting point for that. As an example:
http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers
I personally don't agree with this but I do understand that many people rarely look beyond their wants and needs.
There are some people that can really benefit from 4K without the need of scaling and 40" is a great starting point for that. As an example:
http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers
turbineseaplane
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 204
Agreed.
4k (uhd) at 40" is basically perfect if you ask me.
If you're a Mac user, something like 32" could be perfect too since their display (retina) scaling system works so well - but for just 1:1 at 4k - 40" is superb.
I felt that way with the Seiki 39" - It's just the 30hz that is the issue there, not the size.
4k (uhd) at 40" is basically perfect if you ask me.
If you're a Mac user, something like 32" could be perfect too since their display (retina) scaling system works so well - but for just 1:1 at 4k - 40" is superb.
I felt that way with the Seiki 39" - It's just the 30hz that is the issue there, not the size.
Yes, if they released a monitor version of the 39" and the 50" 4k televisions, with dp1.2 and no electronics to put input lag, they'd make a shitton of money, and pretty much corner the whole market for a long while.
Definitely not, unless you want to buy a couple of cheap koreans.
turbineseaplane
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 204
That said, we are hearing none of these until Q1 2015 - Long wait just to find out if they are any good or not.
My friend just grabbed that LG 34um95 to hold him over.
It obvious how good these are going to be. It will just be the 4K TVs with some improvements for use as monitors.
Probably not, it wouldn't take that long to just slap monitor electronics on the screens. They are waiting for dp1.3, hdmi2.0 and in the meantime they're probably doing other optimizations on the panel (which has quite big issues with colors).
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
40" is too big at a desk for gaming since it doesn't increase the FoV at all (its a block of four 1080p resolutions, aka 'quad hd', at the same 16:9 aspect ratio/virtual camera FoV). It just makes the same scene JUMBO in front of your face pushing the extents into your periphery which is eye bending and even micro neck bending.., but then gaming would be better on a 120hz-144hz 1ms(TN) gsync/ulmb monitor anyway (dp 1.3 can do 120hz *input* at 4k but only if someone makes a monitor capable of it). You don't play a screen shot, 1st/3rd person games have continual movement keying and mouse-look flow pathing motion, with the entire viewport/world moving. There are some gysnc 4k panels due out but they are 60hz so far. The gpu demands of 4k are also ridiculous, especially since I would personally never drop back to 60hz monitors for 1st/3rd person games so would be shooting to get around 100fps average (dual 780sli can do it currently on most of the modern demanding games on ultra at 2560x1440, I'm waiting for the 800 series to do sli though).
40" is not too big at a desk for desktop/app real-estate though imo, where you would be eliminating bezels of multiple screens between your overall real-estate. That is where a ips or VA 4k would do well , with a different monitor dedicated to gaming. You can do 120hz input 1920x1080 mode on some 4k panels however, but the tradeoffs of gaming monitor techs vs color uniformity and color range, black levels/detail in blacks, hz and response time vs blur reduction/elimination, high hz+fps motion&control articulation and motion&animation definition, vsync usage vs dynamic hz or backlight strobing zero blur, etc. still remain.
The hypothetical 4k panel in this apples to apples graphic I made(all screens at 108.8ppi) would be about 40.8" diagonal.
40" is not too big at a desk for desktop/app real-estate though imo, where you would be eliminating bezels of multiple screens between your overall real-estate. That is where a ips or VA 4k would do well , with a different monitor dedicated to gaming. You can do 120hz input 1920x1080 mode on some 4k panels however, but the tradeoffs of gaming monitor techs vs color uniformity and color range, black levels/detail in blacks, hz and response time vs blur reduction/elimination, high hz+fps motion&control articulation and motion&animation definition, vsync usage vs dynamic hz or backlight strobing zero blur, etc. still remain.
The hypothetical 4k panel in this apples to apples graphic I made(all screens at 108.8ppi) would be about 40.8" diagonal.
Last edited:
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
But what if these displays are able to overclock to 4k 96+hz??? Surely that is a possibility given hdmi 2.0 and dp 1.3 connections! The TCONS an PCB gotta be pretty beefy in those displays with those connections and we already know the VA panel display is capable of overclocking given our old research on the seiki 39"
Thank Gawd I got that second job working as an assistant crackwore cause I fear the next 12 months are gonna be expensive.
Thank Gawd I got that second job working as an assistant crackwore cause I fear the next 12 months are gonna be expensive.
39" Seiki is best display I've ever had for gaming, using just 1080p@120hz. Low PPI is more than made up for by the emmersiveness of the large display. Fairly infrequently are you trying to focus on edges of screen when gaming.
Oh and there is always a small chance we'll be able to do 4k@120hz with 4:2:0 chroma on new Seiki. Seiki would make a killing if they officially supported that.
Oh and there is always a small chance we'll be able to do 4k@120hz with 4:2:0 chroma on new Seiki. Seiki would make a killing if they officially supported that.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
that depends on the HUD, notifications, pointers, indicators, chat, action bars, meters, mini map,, rearview, radar, uav, etc of the particular game and how important they are to the gameplay. Most (vast majority of) games are not highly modifiable in those respects. Rift was one game in particular whose interface was extremely modifiable(fields moveable, scalable, rotatable, etc) out of the box without mods but that is a very uncommon exception. The entire scene gets JUMBO sized regardless as well, pushing more of the scene outside of your focal viewpoint without any increase to your FoV.
I had a 37" westinghouse at desktop distances and I know for a fact that you "eye bend" and even micro neck bend to the periphery at normal desk distances unless you set the monitor back considerably.
It would be nice if it were standard for games to allow you to define a virtual primary monitor space in the middle of a screen(incl the whole primary scene element sizes, HUDs, notifications, pointers, chat).. with all extents being additional FoV for immersion, or have FoV sliders/controls that provide a similar result. This is not the case unfortunately. In order to increase your FoV considerably (in 1st/3rd person games) you usually have to use a different aspect ratio via LLL triple monitor or a a 21:9 monitor. I wonder if you could run a 4k at 3840x1600 (x1613 I think to get 21:9 but close enough) with black bars on top and bottom 280px high each, and if the majority games would be able to support it similar to a 3440x1440 21:9 monitor. Reference the +280 top and bottom on the graphic I made but across the whole monitor. Just a thought since it would at least increase the FoV while keeping the main scene more in line with your focal viewpoint. Huds, pointers, notifications, chat,minimap, etc would still be an issue on many games.
I had a 37" westinghouse at desktop distances and I know for a fact that you "eye bend" and even micro neck bend to the periphery at normal desk distances unless you set the monitor back considerably.
It would be nice if it were standard for games to allow you to define a virtual primary monitor space in the middle of a screen(incl the whole primary scene element sizes, HUDs, notifications, pointers, chat).. with all extents being additional FoV for immersion, or have FoV sliders/controls that provide a similar result. This is not the case unfortunately. In order to increase your FoV considerably (in 1st/3rd person games) you usually have to use a different aspect ratio via LLL triple monitor or a a 21:9 monitor. I wonder if you could run a 4k at 3840x1600 (x1613 I think to get 21:9 but close enough) with black bars on top and bottom 280px high each, and if the majority games would be able to support it similar to a 3440x1440 21:9 monitor. Reference the +280 top and bottom on the graphic I made but across the whole monitor. Just a thought since it would at least increase the FoV while keeping the main scene more in line with your focal viewpoint. Huds, pointers, notifications, chat,minimap, etc would still be an issue on many games.
Last edited:
40" is too big at a desk for gaming since it doesn't increase the FoV at all (its a block of four 1080p resolutions, aka 'quad hd', at the same 16:9 aspect ratio/virtual camera FoV). It just makes the same scene JUMBO in front of your face pushing the extents into your periphery which is eye bending and even micro neck bending.., but then gaming would be better on a 120hz-144hz 1ms(TN) gsync/ulmb monitor anyway (dp 1.3 can do 120hz *input* at 4k but only if someone makes a monitor capable of it). You don't play a screen shot, 1st/3rd person games have continual movement keying and mouse-look flow pathing motion, with the entire viewport/world moving. There are some gysnc 4k panels due out but they are 60hz so far. The gpu demands of 4k are also ridiculous, especially since I would personally never drop back to 60hz monitors for 1st/3rd person games so would be shooting to get around 100fps average (dual 780sli can do it currently on most of the modern demanding games on ultra at 2560x1440, I'm waiting for the 800 series to do sli though).
40" is not too big at a desk for desktop/app real-estate though imo, where you would be eliminating bezels of multiple screens between your overall real-estate. That is where a ips or VA 4k would do well , with a different monitor dedicated to gaming. You can do 120hz input 1920x1080 mode on some 4k panels however, but the tradeoffs of gaming monitor techs vs color uniformity and color range, black levels/detail in blacks, hz and response time vs blur reduction/elimination, high hz+fps motion&control articulation and motion&animation definition, vsync usage vs dynamic hz or backlight strobing zero blur, etc. still remain.
The hypothetical 4k panel in this apples to apples graphic I made(all screens at 108.8ppi) would be about 40.8" diagonal.
Discussion about gaming is a moot point anyway. Next year the Oculus Rift CV1 will be released, and from that point on games will be played on that.
4k and 8k displays are for workspace, not for gaming.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
yes if you looked at my previous reply to that you would see that I was focusing on 4k being better suited to desktop/app real-estate, and that a 4k desktop/app screen(prob ips of va) would still be a tradeoff from a 4k gaming screen were an advanced 4k gaming screen ever made (120hz-144hz, 1ms response, and hopefully a g-sync/dynamic hz, ulmb/backlight strobing option). Some people like to use a single monitor though I guess, and others focus on still screen shot "art" and think it is a must have, ignoring the massive smear blur of 60hz and the low motion&control articulation, motion and animation defintion you actually see with your continual movement keying and mouse look pathing in 1st/3rd person games.. combined with the low fps of demanding 3840x2160 resolution or extreme gpu budgets. It doesn't help that review sites are pushing 4k hard either. The thing about higher motion definition and motion clarity is you can't show it to someone on their monitor directly like you can a pretty screen shot. (Some people even downsample 6k and people seem to drool over the stills). There are those that run 1920x1080 at 120hz on a 4k screen though, and revert back to 4k for desktop/apps.. but again you are trading off the better of each type of monitor.
I'm definitely interested in the oculus rift for gaming and interactive experiences/story~movie experience 'games' and simulations. I'm very happy that they are so focused on higher hz and blur elimination too, which I thought was going to be a huge tradeoff when their first press releases seemed to have no mention of it. Now the consumer version is supposed to be 90hz - 100hz with low persistence/blur elimination tech of some sort and the devs consider high hz and blur elimination "fundamental to vr". 1080p at the oculus rift VR world "screen size" will still be a limiting factor for quite some time though. Hopefully future generations of the rift and it's competitiors will be higher rez and that gpu power/price will catch up a little.
I'm definitely interested in the oculus rift for gaming and interactive experiences/story~movie experience 'games' and simulations. I'm very happy that they are so focused on higher hz and blur elimination too, which I thought was going to be a huge tradeoff when their first press releases seemed to have no mention of it. Now the consumer version is supposed to be 90hz - 100hz with low persistence/blur elimination tech of some sort and the devs consider high hz and blur elimination "fundamental to vr". 1080p at the oculus rift VR world "screen size" will still be a limiting factor for quite some time though. Hopefully future generations of the rift and it's competitiors will be higher rez and that gpu power/price will catch up a little.
CV1 should be 1440p, judging by the leaks.
I'd order one today. You are totally correct.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,122
FTFY.
I, for one, am not too keen on playing games while wearing a headset. Not to mention the fact I will have nothing at all to do with Facebook. I welcome these new high resolutions for gaming purposes.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
The Oculus is trash and will do next to nothing in terms of total market penetration value. Basically, nobody is going to buy it except for a handful of enthusiasts who (1) have $1,000+ PCs, (2) Don't mind a sweaty headband that digs into their hair and scalp, (3) don't mind not being able to see their mouse and keyboard (4) Don't mind loosing sense of their real life surroundings....ie falling out of their chair, etc, etc (5) don't get motion sick, yes despite the motion fixes there will still be a good percentage of population that can't handle having all of their senses covered, because motion sickness comes from a detachment between your brain and actual surroundings.
The MASS consumer has already soundly demonstrated that they do not care about 3D technology unless it comes in a glasses free / headset free implementations. And if you are going to support a BILLION dollar idea, you will need the backing of the MASS consumer segment or a customer that has unlimited deep pockets ie Uncle Sam.
The facebook buyout was a total joke. It was a good way to launder value out of share holders pockets and cash in some of the facebook IPO wealth without raising eyebrows and causing lack of faith in management. In the end they will write Oculus off and take a nice generous tax break and everything that the original product stood for will be gone.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
We will see, quite literally. There were plenty of naysayers about the wii that sounded a lot like you.. and it sold millions, (whether it's longevity was good or not might be debatable).
The point is, those naysayers were dead wrong after having scathing critiques about no-one wanting motion capture controller wand waving, standing(at all), attached to wrist, etc.
VR is different than watching a 3D tv. People already had good HD tv's and blurays or other digital content and many weren't willing to shell out good money again just for the 3D tech and glasses in the living room on the same tv basically. It's not a valid parallel to a pc gamer who sits alone within feet in front of (in many cases) a 27" widescreen panel already (and in some cases even people in LLL triple monitor immersion). 3D gaming also costs a lot of gpu power vs framerate, and it's hz is low per eye and uses shutters on glasses so causes eyestrain.
The oculus rift will be 90hz-100hz total screen, with low persistences/blur reduction... no low hz per eye, no shuttering, no fps hit.
Of course it is also going to be incredibly more immerse than 3d on a a single flat panel desktop monitor could ever hope to be, so there is that too.
You can't say what the consumer model's head unit will be like exactly either ("band digging into scalp" comments). The dev's are saying they are targeting for it to be smaller and lighter by that time. Plenty of people already wear headphone headsets of varying comfort also, with big cans. People want immersion - that's why so many would like a super widescreen monitor w/o bezels if available.. like triple monitor if they could afford the gpu power vs performance. Fall out of your chair sounds ridiculous, especially since my chair has arms.. are you sitting on a stool? Are your hands not on the desk/keyboard and mouse in front of you? (You really should have your elbows properly supported in-line on adjustable chair arms too). Personally I use a g13 gamepad for my 1st and 3rd person games. I don't have to look at it. It's basically set up like the left half of the keyboard (elvn's g13 setup for 1st/3rd person and general gaming, elvn's naga setup for rpgs mostly). Maybe if you suck at typing text without looking at the keyboard and aren't using voice chat in your game you would run into problems with not seeing your keyboard to input chat or something. The rift is for in game immersion, not doing desktop stuff. You really shouldn't be looking at your keyboard at all when you are in a game session imo.
We will have to wait and see how it plays out but I for one will buy a rift since they are doing everything right. High level mocap on the unit, 90hz - 100hz, blur reduction, and the highest rez they can manage to get. Put oculus rift demo kiosks in malls and best buy's across the country like they did the wii and people will absolutely eat them up.
There will hopefully, and likely, be competitors to the rift also so if you hate the facebook association so much you might end up with alternatives in the long run.
The point is, those naysayers were dead wrong after having scathing critiques about no-one wanting motion capture controller wand waving, standing(at all), attached to wrist, etc.
VR is different than watching a 3D tv. People already had good HD tv's and blurays or other digital content and many weren't willing to shell out good money again just for the 3D tech and glasses in the living room on the same tv basically. It's not a valid parallel to a pc gamer who sits alone within feet in front of (in many cases) a 27" widescreen panel already (and in some cases even people in LLL triple monitor immersion). 3D gaming also costs a lot of gpu power vs framerate, and it's hz is low per eye and uses shutters on glasses so causes eyestrain.
The oculus rift will be 90hz-100hz total screen, with low persistences/blur reduction... no low hz per eye, no shuttering, no fps hit.
Of course it is also going to be incredibly more immerse than 3d on a a single flat panel desktop monitor could ever hope to be, so there is that too.
You can't say what the consumer model's head unit will be like exactly either ("band digging into scalp" comments). The dev's are saying they are targeting for it to be smaller and lighter by that time. Plenty of people already wear headphone headsets of varying comfort also, with big cans. People want immersion - that's why so many would like a super widescreen monitor w/o bezels if available.. like triple monitor if they could afford the gpu power vs performance. Fall out of your chair sounds ridiculous, especially since my chair has arms.. are you sitting on a stool? Are your hands not on the desk/keyboard and mouse in front of you? (You really should have your elbows properly supported in-line on adjustable chair arms too). Personally I use a g13 gamepad for my 1st and 3rd person games. I don't have to look at it. It's basically set up like the left half of the keyboard (elvn's g13 setup for 1st/3rd person and general gaming, elvn's naga setup for rpgs mostly). Maybe if you suck at typing text without looking at the keyboard and aren't using voice chat in your game you would run into problems with not seeing your keyboard to input chat or something. The rift is for in game immersion, not doing desktop stuff. You really shouldn't be looking at your keyboard at all when you are in a game session imo.
We will have to wait and see how it plays out but I for one will buy a rift since they are doing everything right. High level mocap on the unit, 90hz - 100hz, blur reduction, and the highest rez they can manage to get. Put oculus rift demo kiosks in malls and best buy's across the country like they did the wii and people will absolutely eat them up.
There will hopefully, and likely, be competitors to the rift also so if you hate the facebook association so much you might end up with alternatives in the long run.
Last edited:
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
Elvn are you seriously comparing the Wii versus the Oculus Rift?
The wii was a great success because it was a fun family orientated entertainment device that actively brought people together. It was a cheap piece of hardware that connected to a common living room TV and worked with the single press of a button.
The Oculus Rift is a lonely anti-social device that closes off the user from the entire rest of the world and needs relatively expensive hardware in order to work properly. Additionally, the user needs to have a knowledge base capable enough to work the configuration of PC settings and deal with the quirks of getting things working just right. GOOD LUCK selling that to the mass consumer!
Your letting your passion get in the way of clear judgement. Its biasing you. The Oculus is going to fail and fail hard. Remember its not a niche device that needs to appeal to the die hard PC enthusiast......No it is now a device that needs to RECOUP A BILLION FRIGGIN DOLLARS and that will never....EVER..... happen. If it does I will eat my car.
The wii was a great success because it was a fun family orientated entertainment device that actively brought people together. It was a cheap piece of hardware that connected to a common living room TV and worked with the single press of a button.
The Oculus Rift is a lonely anti-social device that closes off the user from the entire rest of the world and needs relatively expensive hardware in order to work properly. Additionally, the user needs to have a knowledge base capable enough to work the configuration of PC settings and deal with the quirks of getting things working just right. GOOD LUCK selling that to the mass consumer!
Your letting your passion get in the way of clear judgement. Its biasing you. The Oculus is going to fail and fail hard. Remember its not a niche device that needs to appeal to the die hard PC enthusiast......No it is now a device that needs to RECOUP A BILLION FRIGGIN DOLLARS and that will never....EVER..... happen. If it does I will eat my car.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
I'm comparing crystal ball naysayers who knew for a fact that their viewpoint was absolutely correct and that noone would buy it.. noone would stand up to play games, be tethered to wrists, wave wands, etc.. and ended up being dead wrong by a landslide.. so in that regard - yes.
Last edited:
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
I'm comparing crystal ball naysayers who knew for a fact that their viewpoint was absolutely correct and that noone would buy it.. noone would stand up to play games, be tethered to wrists, wave wands, etc.. and ended up being dead wrong by a landslide.. so in that regard - yes.
Even though I never bought one and had ZERO interest, I knew the Wii would be a great seller and its success did not surprise me at all.
The closest successful long shot I can compare the Oculus Rift to is when Steve Jobs launched Apple with Wozniak. It took incredible vision to see the potential of the home computer at that time, but Steve was not the only person with that vision, there were literally thousands of other entrepreneurs at that time with the same vision, but Steve had Wozniak's Genius and Markkula's money to make it happen....but none of that would have meant anything unless the timing was right and the world was on the verge of the Great Technical Revolution. A sizeable enough consumer base (small business & education sectors) were primed and ready for the personal computer at that time....had Jobs tried Apple 5 years earlier (in the 60's) he would have failed miserably.
I do not see a great 3D technological revolution brewing. It was already tested and rejected in the consumer market.
Don't get me wrong, I love tech and will be buying the CV1....In fact I will most likely order the developer kit 2 as well....but I am a tech enthusiast and am willing to spend hours dialing in a PC's settings to make things work properly. I am skilled enough to deal with video driver issues and other nagging hardware/software issues that come up along the way, but your average consumer is not!
Your saying the average consumer will be able to try the rift in a kiosk and then take it home to immediately enjoy and we both know that is not realistic. The average consumer wants plug and play as evidenced in the tablet / mobile phone trends. Do you honestly think the mass consumer market will choose the oculus rift over glasses free 3D displays?
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
I posted the numbers to make a point about just how wrong the absolutists were about people being willing to change their gaming paradigm.. standing up and using mocap gaming hardware - as a comparison to the absolutists about the oculus rift headgear.. I didn't mean to say that the rift would sell wii numbers by any means so I hope you didn't think I was implying that though I could see where you could get confused that way.. I did mean to imply that having them set up at kiosks (again like the wii) would definitely make them must haves for a lot of people if done right though.
Hopefully steamboxes will someday make it more kiosk/console based for people to jump into pc gaming without having to learn or deal with the nuances of windows. Valve does want to support the oculus rift heartily from all I heard, not sure if facebook is a problem on that front at all. Will have to see about the steam box w/steam os going forward as well.. plenty of naysayer clairvoyants on that front too.
Imagine a scenario someday where you could buy an oculus rift + steambox with steamOS-linux halflife(3?), TeamFortress(3?), Portal(3?) all pre-configured for the rift and at 90hz -100hz.. and steam sales of a bunch of steam-os/linux games in the same period (like xmas). All with simple kiosk launchers from steam interface and automatic updates.
It would be expensive but could be game changing. Daydreaming? Yes. Possible? Maybe.
Regardless I'm all for it on the traditional pc gaming front as I think it can be a true groundbreaking/gamechanging/"nextgen" whatever you want to call it way more so than the resolution and graphic complexity increases have done for games for so long until now (4k at low hz and low fps going backwards even in most facets imo), even if VR itself has been around in rudimentary form since way back.
Hopefully steamboxes will someday make it more kiosk/console based for people to jump into pc gaming without having to learn or deal with the nuances of windows. Valve does want to support the oculus rift heartily from all I heard, not sure if facebook is a problem on that front at all. Will have to see about the steam box w/steam os going forward as well.. plenty of naysayer clairvoyants on that front too.
Imagine a scenario someday where you could buy an oculus rift + steambox with steamOS-linux halflife(3?), TeamFortress(3?), Portal(3?) all pre-configured for the rift and at 90hz -100hz.. and steam sales of a bunch of steam-os/linux games in the same period (like xmas). All with simple kiosk launchers from steam interface and automatic updates.
It would be expensive but could be game changing. Daydreaming? Yes. Possible? Maybe.
Regardless I'm all for it on the traditional pc gaming front as I think it can be a true groundbreaking/gamechanging/"nextgen" whatever you want to call it way more so than the resolution and graphic complexity increases have done for games for so long until now (4k at low hz and low fps going backwards even in most facets imo), even if VR itself has been around in rudimentary form since way back.
Last edited:
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
Well lets be clear. I think the Oculus Rift will sell and sell ok for what it is. Just like the Rog Swift will sell well for what it is....but I don't think either the Rift or Swift will hit anything close to Wii numbers and the thing is the Swift does not need to hit anything close to wii numbers, but the Rift does. That is the difference to what I am harping on.
In order to hit Wii numbers, which is what a BILLION dollar investment needs to do, the rift would have to introduce something totally ground breaking that would cause consumers, of all ages, to immediately shit their pants once they saw it in a store. And I don't see the average consumer loosing control of their stool over the rift "as is." Now, I don't know what is in store for CV2....we have a pretty good idea of what CV1 will be, but CV2 is the key...that needs to be something so special that it would even impress my technophobic parents (who bought their last TV 20 years ago), otherwise the Rift will fail.
In order to hit Wii numbers, which is what a BILLION dollar investment needs to do, the rift would have to introduce something totally ground breaking that would cause consumers, of all ages, to immediately shit their pants once they saw it in a store. And I don't see the average consumer loosing control of their stool over the rift "as is." Now, I don't know what is in store for CV2....we have a pretty good idea of what CV1 will be, but CV2 is the key...that needs to be something so special that it would even impress my technophobic parents (who bought their last TV 20 years ago), otherwise the Rift will fail.
Motion handling is shit just like everything else that does not use "strobing' tech. Input lag was minimal once the 39" was set to 1080p 120hz and grayscale & color were VA great! Basically, If the new Seikis allow overclocking of 4K 120hz I will stop wearing women's panties on weekends.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
idk how much it needs to sell. Some juggernaughts buy things and run them at a loss (like youtube bought for 1.65 billion in 2006, still running at a loss by some estimates). Idk what facebook wants to do with the rift socially but that was their standpoint.
There is also this recent news, which plays into the possibility of people adopting VR:
2014/06/25/facebooks-oculus-vr-acquires-the-company-behind-the-xbox-360-controller-design/
I'll leave it at that since this thread got hijacked enough by the rift stuff.
There is also this recent news, which plays into the possibility of people adopting VR:
2014/06/25/facebooks-oculus-vr-acquires-the-company-behind-the-xbox-360-controller-design/
I'll leave it at that since this thread got hijacked enough by the rift stuff.
Selling a lot of units that then proceed to collect dust and set Nintendo up for its eventual demise is not a "success".
It's a short-term gimmick. Claiming that the Wii was some sort of awesome success, which people _still_ insist on doing despite the fact that it was clearly a failure even a few years ago, is like claiming that Pet Rocks were a success because, well, "that one year or two".
It's a short-term gimmick. Claiming that the Wii was some sort of awesome success, which people _still_ insist on doing despite the fact that it was clearly a failure even a few years ago, is like claiming that Pet Rocks were a success because, well, "that one year or two".
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,311
It did however prove overwhelmingly against what many were saying, that people are willing to adopt a mocap/vr gaming paradigm outside of the same old thing. To a degree guitar hero and rock band also did.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
The Wii was a success, its next console after that was the failure. Nintendo failed to capitalize on what made it great, they lost touch with the consumer with the wii u and they failed to keep innovating on what the Wii built.
Its like the Ipod and Ipod nano...those were amazing products that got apple back in the game, but who really gives a fuck about them now that cell phones have come so far? The point is, apple was able to take the momentum from the Ipod/Nano and parlay that into the Iphone.
Would you call the Ipod and Ipod nano failures? No...so why call the Wii a failure?
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Let's instread talk about Seiki releasing these awesome monitors.
No point, it's 7+ months into the future.
l88bastard: have you tried out prototypes actually in person? You are 120% sure, that extra immersion feel won't compensate flaws you mentioned? As I see it just like trackir5, where annoyance of having to wear headphones with trackir clip is more then enough compensated by ease of enabled natural feeling look management in flightsims. By analogy I guesstimate Occulus to be success with acceptable flaws for what you get with unique new experience.
The Rift and VR will mature in about 5-7 years when display technology and video hardware is far along enough to feed an image to your eyes that doesn't look like it's out of the 1990's, even if it is 3D. Until then it's going to remain an eye-straining, nauseating gimmick, CV1 or not. It's about the right time to get started working on it, though, but these guys don't need me to tell them that.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
The last VR headset I tried was the Sony HZ1 and I was impressed with its lack of crosstalk and how clean 3D looked....but was turned off by the paltry 720p resolution, holy hell uncomfortable ergonomics of it crushing my skull and the vomit inducing disorintation which arose from not being able to see the physical world around me for bearing reference. I did not try the rift dev kit 1 because it was not enough of a upgrade from the Sony, but I did put a preorder in for the Dev kit 2 so we will see.
Headphones and track ir are poor examples to compare against a device that effectively renders you blind to the world. Trying to navigate a keyboard that you cannot see is not fun and constantly flipping up the mask to see the keyboard is not fun. Navigating your hands around your desk, mouse and keyboard is not fun when you cant see shit captain! The mass consumer segment wants tablets to navigate their captacular social media, and shitty game consoles to play the uber rehashed to death madden call of dudy trash. I was not saying the rift would not be cool or interesting for techno nerds such as ourselves...I merely said its sales numbers are going to be dismal for what it needs to accomplish given the massive billion dollar opportunity cost.
Between the Dev kit 1 & 2 Oculus is moving around 90,000 units. So how many CV1s can they realistically expect to sell? 200k units? 500k units? A MILLION UNITS??? I doubt they will sell 500k units of the CV1, which is small.....small potatoes compared to the 101 million Wiis that were sold1
Last edited:
Why is that? Perhaps they are waiting for some custom or new integrated chips to be available?