Sure. Call me biased. But I at least tried it, right? I can't even call you that. Uninformed maybe? Cause ignorant doesn't sound right.Yes, just like you can find biased fans that think their new favorite toy is going to change the world.
I am off to do some comfy big screen TV couch gaming. Have fun strapping into your sweaty headset.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
VR systems are “a very expensive Wii” says RocketWerkz Dean Hall
- Thread starter polonyc2
- Start date
Waters, kudos for trying to keep out but you've fallen into the troll's trap like the rest of us. I'm nowhere near a VR zealot, I'm pretty forgiving in some of the shortcomings BECAUSE of the enhancement it brings to the experience. My "hiatus" from the DK2 had nothing to do with the novelty wearing off and, like Waters said, has to do with lack of in-depth content. For a while, most experiences were short or very shallow. It's gotten better and I've put the headset back in use lately because of access to Eve: Valkyrie. I also think your right in calling Snowdog biased, he shows absolutely unwillingness to accept that it may actually live up to a tenth of the hype/praise it gets. It's not Lawnmower Man or Sword Art Online but it's definitely an evolution to the experience.
Regardless of anyone's bias, we have the major headsets launching into the wild in a month and a year from now we can revisit this thread to find out who to order condiments for while they eat their own shoe....or hat...or however that saying goes....
Regardless of anyone's bias, we have the major headsets launching into the wild in a month and a year from now we can revisit this thread to find out who to order condiments for while they eat their own shoe....or hat...or however that saying goes....
Yeah, I fell on this trap. But I did it willingly!
That's the thing he just doesn't get it, that the wow is on a whole other level compared to anything else out there. He just mentioned a big screen. Well, I have a 110" screen with a projector. I can game on that with my GTX980, with max settings and everything, but I chose to play what I can in my "sweaty" DK2. Why? Cause it's that much better! And it'll only get better ...
Btw, not sure if biased is the correct term. It's not like we're picking this over something else. Call me a big fan of VR. I still play my PS4 for multiplayer. As for him, I'd say narrow minded. It's ok to have an opinion, even have an idea of what a certain subject is. But when it's VR, there's no way around it, you gotta try it. Everyone says the same thing, you HAVE to try it ...
I agree with that...the people that have tried it think that they have some profound knowledge which makes them able to accurately predict it's success on the market...no, it's the opposite...they are the die-hard fans or early adopters who will buy it no matter what...those are the outliers...the true barometer of its success will be the people that are on the fence or skeptical about it...3D had it's die hard fans so did HD-DVD and so did plasma TV...I think it will fail as a gaming platform because of those clunky headsets...plus I just can't see playing a lot of games other then driving or flight games with this...can I play Witcher 3 or Fallout 4 or Dark Souls?...VR is for more 'simple' games
Why do you believe you couldn't play Witcher, Fallout, or Dark Souls? Do you believe first person shooters aren't a viable platform for VR or do you mean those games specifically?
I mean all the movement required would seem like a lot of physical movement which would get in the way of the fun...currently in a game swinging your characters weapons with a mouse/kb/controller is easy but having to replicate those movements in a more pronounced way with a tracking wand or whatever would seem like a lot of wasted energy...it just seems like a lot of work and people play games to relax...that's why I think flight or racing games where you are seated and only require simple movement works best or simple exploration games specifically designed for VR
Nobody is claiming profound knowledge. But it's just common sense that to form an opinion about something you must have at least some knowledge. And the bare minimum for VR is to at least try it one time. There are people that tried it and still don't like it, which is fine. It's just that there are a ton of people that are skeptical and change their minds after they try it, so whenever I see people forming opinions before trying it, I know there's a possibility that they could change their minds after a single demo. This is not an impulse buy! It's expensive and clunky. There's plenty of buzz around it on the press, so people get curious and those on the fence will give it a shot before buying it. And the fact that you say that you can't play some third person game in VR, proves that you don't have a lot of knowledge about it, which is ok, just try to keep an open mind then. Info is out there and pretty soon you'll be able to try it easily.
You know that the Rift is launching with a conventional pad, right? There will be more traditional games that you're already used to, but now you'll get to immerse yourself a lot more in them. VR games don't necessarily have to be "simple" games. It's too early to say how VR gaming scene will evolve, but Rift is launching with a platformer bundled. Can't get more traditional than that! But yes, flying and racing are a no-brainer, and for those 2 niche communities, it's revolutionary.
Oh I see, ya I'd agree that it would be a lot of motion. Not sure why you'd call exercising, wasted energy. There are many of us in society that could use the extra exercise, lol. Seriously though, I understand now where you are coming from and, like Waters said, not all games are going to be full body, room scale experiences. Half-Life 2 is already compatible with the Rift and you use a mouse/keyboard to play that still. I imagine any game that has intense amount of physical exertion will have a controller play option as well, or at least one would hope, lol. I think those games are still a bit off though just because traditional game mechanics don't work well in VR so devs have to learn what works and what doesn't.
You seem confused about my opinion. Trying it wouldn't possibly change it, except in the negative direction. Because I already assume the experience it offers is novel, awesome, magical, etc.... Am I wrong?
If I already assume it's a magical experience, what exactly, would trying it one time accomplish?
My argument is that novelty and magic wears off. Then the negatives come more to the forefront. Things like VR Sickness, headaches, Isolation, hassle, discomfort, sweaty fogging lenses...
Did you actually read this link?
The sad truth about Oculus Rift
If they are viable, why were you saying earlier that you didn't play with your DK2 for a long time, because there was a lack of software?
Because without trying, your opinion is hollow. You don't know how "awesome" it is. And you don't know how "clunky" it is. It's very possible that for you, the negatives will always be bigger than the benefits, but without trying (with an open mind) you're merely speculating. It's like those first time parents that say "I knew it was going to be hard, but not that hard" when they have their first kid. Now, I have very little doubt that your mind is so set, that when/if you actually try it, it won't matter, cause based on what you're saying, you're the definition of a closed mind.
Not those exact same games. Similar games are possible, but they don't exist yet.
You still aren't comprehending what I wrote. It doesn't matter how awesome the initial experience is. What I am talking about is what happens in the long term when that initial magic fades, that may take a month, or it may take a year, but it will happen.
Again, did you read the link I posted? Or are you too closed minded to read it?
Of course I read it. And why are you calling me closed minded? I already told you that some people tried and didn't like it. I already mentioned a ton of cons for VR that you didn't even know about it. Now the guy that wrote the article? He tried it and here's a direct quote from it.
Interesting, isn't it?
Yeah, it backs my point entirely. Because after the magic fades, the hassle moves to the forefront.
VR makes a dynamite first impression. But long term the novelty fades and its hassles means it gets used less and less frequently.
You keep arguing about how awesome the initial experience is, like I am disagreeing with you, when I am NOT.
Last edited:
So I concede that this guy has valid points and that it's not worth the hassle for him. Can you concede that you can't generalize and say that the "magic" fades for everyone based on a single article, and because of that it will fail? I mean, seriously, you're quoting a single article. I could quote a multitude saying the opposite. And look at this part of the quote:
I mean, it's an article from March of last year, based on DK2. And he said TODAY (as in Mar/15). Starting this March, it's a whole new hardware that a lot of the hassle has been reduced (lighter, more balanced, integrated audio) and a much improved experience (better display, lenses, leds on the back). Plus games! We'll finally get real games for it ... The whole equation hassle vs benefits is about to be changed in less than a month! Maybe even this guy writes an article saying CV1 (or Vive) totally changed his mind!
That's not what I'm arguing. Your argument revolves around hassle vs benefits. And I'm arguing that you don't have enough knowledge of either to make that claim. You can assume all you want, but it's still that, an assumption. Hell you could try it and find a lot less awesome than you're assuming now and find the hassle even worse than you think it is now. But at least your opinion will have some weight behind it. Heck you never got surprised in life? When you were expecting something and it turned out to be completely different? Good or bad?
How much I personally enjoy the experience or not, is irrelevant when determine my ability to predict the success/failure of a product. I didn't need to try Ouya/Motion Gaming//3D Gaming/3DTV to predict their demise.
Also note, that where you jumped in it was roomscale that I was predicting the demise of. It's the Motion gaming of VR. People will very quickly tire of using their body to control movement. That is just human nature.
VR I give some small chance for success. Room scale I think has no chance.
Stop comparing those things to VR ... Not even close to being the same. I don't remember ever reading an article claiming you gotta try the Ouya/Motion gaming/3d Gaming/3DTV to really get it. Pretty much any mainstream article about VR says you have to try it, including the one you keep using it to prove how much the "VR magic" fades! lol. You can predict anything you want, but when it comes to VR, unless you try it, it's really hard to take you seriously.
Regarding room scale, I'm skeptical. But I'm willing to give it a try, before forming my opinion. And this, may be a bit harder to properly test, unlike "regular" VR.
Anyway, beating a dead horse on this one. It'll be fun to come back to this in a few years.
I never said they were the same. Just pointing out that trying something is not required for prediction. Also trying it would not change my prediction, since I already have very high expectations of the experience offered.
One thing we can agree on.
Just one favor I ask. With VR launching now, there will be more threads about it. So if in the future you post your bold prediction in other threads, make sure you post the disclaimer that you haven't tried it and you don't believe trying is important. That will make easier to just disregard it from the get go.
My house? Sure. Where are you? I have demoed it to quite a few people ... Having another guy over this weekend.
Also, it'll be available to try it in retails stores at launch or pretty soon after. Oculus already said that.
You can find someone willing to let you try it in NYC, I'm pretty sure. But if you're not comfortable with that, there will be demos at retail stores. Not perfect as trying at a meet or someone's house, but it's better than nothing.
Games not developed with VR in mind do things that are not good for VR gaming. Some work well enough but others will make you sick. For example, any game that has automated character movements or changes your viewpoint automatically is incredibly painful, lol. There's a video Valve posted awhile back about what they learned enabling VR for TF2 and that's a point the guy makes that in VR you MUST NOT move the players viewpoint automatically...unless you want to disorient them. Third person games may end up being more viable than first person games because you have your character as a central point of reference for your vision to anchor onto, there's an article out there by the guys that developed Lucky's Tale where they talk about this. I mentioned earlier, I think in this thread, that initial content for the DK2 was shallow or very short, more like tech demos than actual games. As you can imagine, that can get boring pretty quick and it did. There's been a lot of development in the last couple years and on launch we will have Eve: Valkyrie which is fun and looks like it has enough content to keep a gamer going for awhile. Lucky's Tale is supposed to be about as long as Portal 1 was, so about 10 hours or so of gameplay with extra 'stuff' to add some replayability to it.
If you're in the St. Louis area, you're all welcome to try it out at me casa.
Depends on the crowd.
For "gamers", I show games: Elite Dangerous (I have hotas), project Cars, assetto corsa (I have wheel/pedals), war thunder and everyone's favorite so far: Alien Isolation. I do that one last, cause it can cause nausea. Showing a replay of a race in project cars, in VR is another awesome demo! Cause you can get up from the chair and stand next to the car, while it's driving at over 200mph. It's pretty awesome!
For non-gamers, I show some other demos like sightline the chair, apollo mission, titans of space, back to dinosaur island. One of my wife's friends was so impressed that she brought her mom to check it out ... She screamed at the end of sightline the chair, and it made me feel bad about it ... But she enjoyed it!
heatshiver
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 224
I read somewhere that it will fail if there are not many adopters after the "beginning", which makes sense. It's like how 3D is going now. But if it continues to get cheaper and more people buy into it, making it mainstream, it should be able to become a mainstay. I hope for the latter...
SBSuperfly
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 865
This thread really makes me disappointed in some of the [H] community. So many people with admittedly no experience with VR vehemently proclaiming the tech a failure. I've had a Vive for about a week now, and despite and flaws or limitations, it's absolutely amazing. The immersion is incredible. Comparing VR to 3D is absolutely ridiculous. They are totally different experiences. VR is not meant to replace traditional displays or TVs. VR should be looked at as a totally separate media consumption device designed for content created specifically for VR.
It's very difficult for me to understand the motivations of someone without any experience with the devices complaining so much. Are they just trying subconsciously to justify to themselves not owning one or being able to afford one? The arguments come across as very hollow. It's like saying "Scuba diving is a stupid fad like pet rocks. No one is gonna want to wear a respirator and goggles." Or they sound like someone who's never fired a gun telling a sniper "scopes are stupid, they limit your field of view."
As someone who owns a Vive, I've found the negatives to be way overblown. The immersion really diminishes the perceived flaws. If you're looking for the screen door effect, you will find it. If you're immersed in game ducking from turrets in Portal Stories, you won't. I've never felt sick at all in VR and i'm prone to getting car sick and sea sick. All of the games I've played feel like they run pretty well and my system isn't a brand new $2k+ machine. I run my VR with a Nvidia gtx 970, an old X58 mobo i bought in 2009 with a Xeon w3690 cpu, 12GB ddr3.
IMHO VR in it's current form is already really impressive, the next generation will only improve upon what is already fantastic.
It's very difficult for me to understand the motivations of someone without any experience with the devices complaining so much. Are they just trying subconsciously to justify to themselves not owning one or being able to afford one? The arguments come across as very hollow. It's like saying "Scuba diving is a stupid fad like pet rocks. No one is gonna want to wear a respirator and goggles." Or they sound like someone who's never fired a gun telling a sniper "scopes are stupid, they limit your field of view."
As someone who owns a Vive, I've found the negatives to be way overblown. The immersion really diminishes the perceived flaws. If you're looking for the screen door effect, you will find it. If you're immersed in game ducking from turrets in Portal Stories, you won't. I've never felt sick at all in VR and i'm prone to getting car sick and sea sick. All of the games I've played feel like they run pretty well and my system isn't a brand new $2k+ machine. I run my VR with a Nvidia gtx 970, an old X58 mobo i bought in 2009 with a Xeon w3690 cpu, 12GB ddr3.
IMHO VR in it's current form is already really impressive, the next generation will only improve upon what is already fantastic.
Supercharged_Z06
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,476
+1 Well said and fully agree.