Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Oculus Rift 599$ Euro more than 700€ O.o...

Perkel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
15,810
Never understood this thing anyways, seems like a cheap gimmick i'd try out few times and ignore. Kinda like 3D movies.

depend really what you play.

I play ton of simulators (mainly racing games) and VR there is end game goal. Since VR perfectly goes hand in hand with seated position. Also proper 3D and headtracking is important in racing game.

It is so much better to race when you can track with your head where you want to drive instead of watch screen that follows position of car. And 3D which gives you proper spatial cues.

If you play 2D games or strategy games from top down view it is mostly pointless.
On other hand VR is the only thing that can make you get that sense of scale some games try to build.

One thing is to see on your screen that something is huge but completely different thing is to feel that something is huge.

IF you see 30km object in Freespace 2 you know it is huge and you see it and compare it to other things.
With VR you can actually sense that something is simply batshit insanely huge due to proper 3D effect which movies can't give you due to nature of its creation.
 

Perkel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
15,810
Going from 2D to 3D was bad enough.

You know actually this is funny. Because i think 2D and 3D effect can go hand in hand via use of really simple 3D objects.

I play currently Bravely Default on 3DS and above is exactly what games looks like. It looks like 2D game that has proper 3D depth. They achieve it using simple 3D objects with handpainted textures on everything:

caldisla.jpg


I mean something like this looks like handpainted 2D image. When you switch on 3D it really is looking good heaving depth AND looking like handpainted image at the same time.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
If you play 2D games or strategy games from top down view it is mostly pointless.
On other hand VR is the only thing that can make you get that sense of scale some games try to build.
Agree with 2D games, it doesn't make much sense other than as a gimmick where you can do pseudo-3D cardboard cutouts or something, disagree with "strategy games from top down view", I think looking down on massive armies or an active battlefield and giving orders is perfect for VR and something like Black & White would be really dope: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/oculus-rift.79590/page-12
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
VR its a stupid concept. Only autists would buy an isolating mask en masse and they don't need it.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
This thread is going to be great for pointing to in 5-10 years as one of those "mobile phones are stupid" or "the Internet is never going to take off" moments.
 

pippin

Guest
This thread is going to be great for pointing to in 5-10 years as one of those "mobile phones are stupid" or "the Internet is never going to take off" moments.

Except this is not the first time VR tries to be a thing, in fact, it has been trying to be for at least 20 years in technology and much more than that in fiction. VR is too expensive and the gadget is too bulky and stupid for it to be relevant for casuals, who are the ones more willing to buy useless shit, considering the success of the iphone for instance.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
This thread is going to be great for pointing to in 5-10 years as one of those "mobile phones are stupid" or "the Internet is never going to take off" moments.

I was an early adopter of mobile phones and the internet and both proved immediately useful. The first time I tried VR was about 20 years ago in an arcade and it wasn't. I'm sure that it has some uses, but the biggest problem remains the isolation (for which the manufacturers try to find a solution ("chaperone")) and the general inconvenience and ugliness. You look like a retard with the VR headset on. Wake me up, when we'll have holodecks. Maybe it has a slightly higher adoption rate than Kinect and Playstation Move with core games, because they can keep sitting on their fat asses with those VR headsets.
 

pippin

Guest
That's another point: internet and mobile phones are useful tools, VR is a luxury.
It might replace coke on higher-up circles, in that sense.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
This thread is going to be great for pointing to in 5-10 years as one of those "mobile phones are stupid" or "the Internet is never going to take off" moments.

Except this is not the first time VR tries to be a thing, in fact, it has been trying to be for at least 20 years in technology and much more than that in fiction. VR is too expensive and the gadget is too bulky and stupid for it to be relevant for casuals, who are the ones more willing to buy useless shit, considering the success of the iphone for instance.
Yes, "remember the VirtualBoy", because a monochrome stereoscopic 2D-render image at 160x144 that would cause headaches and dizzyness due to framerate/refresh rate/display technology and tracking issues (or a lack thereof) is the same as modern 3D graphics in Hi-Def and life-like rendering of 3D environments to a sense of scale e.g. you could easily make someone feel like they are looking at a giant IMAX screen, a star destroyer or that they are in the grand canyon in VR, while this is never going to be possible while looking at a monitor and make it seem like you're actually there and let you move around and be immersed in a Fantasy/Sci-Fi environment or play something with buddies around the world. If this was still the same experience as a "Virtual Boy" or "Forte VFX1" I'd agree with you, but there's a reason companies like Facebook, SONY, Microsoft, Samsung, Valve etc. are jumping in at this point.
Virtual_Boy_Wario_Land_Gameplay.png


Technology goes through iteration till it becomes viable for the mass market, remember these?
martincooper1_wideweb__470x3620.jpg

newton-pen.jpg
23615-004-6599FB73.jpg


Gee, why didn't everyone mass adopt right there and then? Why didn't everyone have the Internet in the late 80s or early 90s? VR will take off in the near future because it became viable and makes sense - the first generation will appeal to enthusiasts kind of like the first graphics cards and it'll get cheaper and the form factor smaller from there as an economy of scale sets in, just like these other things, AR will soon follow although it's still likely a decade away from becoming such.

Why it didn't "take off" 20 years ago should be self-evident for anyone with a few braincells, it didn't deliver the experience that was promised and hyped (now it does to large extents) and there was the price and computational ability to consider:
CVnFxYz.jpg


I find the arguments by people that didn't even try this new iteration and have no idea what to expect the funniest. And arguments that "it makes you look stupid and therefor it'll never take off" have been lobbed at many of these (and other) things before.
 
Last edited:

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
Yes, "remember the VirtualBoy", because a monochrome stereoscopic 2D-render image at 160x144 that would cause headaches and dizzyness due to framerate/refresh rate/display technology and tracking issues (or a lack thereof) is the same as modern 3D graphics in Hi-Def and life-like rendering of 3D environments to a sense of scale e.g. you could easily make someone feel like they are looking at a giant IMAX screen, a star destroyer or that they are in the grand canyon in VR, while this is never going to be possible while looking at a monitor and make it seem like you're actually there and let you move around and be immersed in a Fantasy/Sci-Fi environment or play something with buddies around the world. If this was still the same experience as a "Virtual Boy" or "Forte VFX1" I'd agree with you, but there's a reason companies like Facebook, SONY, Microsoft, Samsung, Valve etc. are jumping in at this point.
Virtual_Boy_Wario_Land_Gameplay.png


Technology goes through iteration till it becomes viable for the mass market, remember these?
martincooper1_wideweb__470x3620.jpg

newton-pen.jpg

Gee, why didn't everyone mass adopt right there and then? Why didn't everyone have the Internet in the late 80s or early 90s? VR will take off in the near future because it became viable and makes sense - the first generation will appeal to enthusiasts kind of like the first graphics cards and it'll get cheaper and the form factor smaller from there as an economy of scale sets in, just like these other things, AR will soon follow although it's still likely a decade away from becoming such.

I find the arguments by people that didn't even try this new iteration and have no idea what to expect the funniest. And arguments that "it makes you look stupid and therefor it'll never take off" have been lobbed at many of these (and other) things before.

The first VR sets I tried weren't some Nintendo gimmicks, but ones with actual 3D objects, displaying something akin to what people imagined "VR" back in the day (think "The Matrix" in the Shadowrun games). So the problem wasn't red dots, but that the novelty wore off pretty quickly.

The pictures of the cell phone and the Newton just prove that people won't mass-adopt things that are expensive and inconvenient, even if they are useful. I'd be really astonished if there will be widespread adoption of VR unless they get rid of the isolating headsets. And I think the "looks stupid" argument is valid: Even people talking on the phone with a bluetooth headset look stupid, now imagine getting watched by someone while you are climbing a mountain in your VR headset?

Next point is that even now AAA titles are becoming too expensive for their own good. Producing a AAA title in VR will cost even more. Unless procedural generation makes a huge let forward, those "hyper-realistic" experiences will be comparatively small.

Maybe it will prove to be a useful add-on for experiencing sports-events, shows and performances and adult entertainment from across the world. Unlike cell phones and the internet, it's something (a luxury) you need time and space for, so the hurdles for adoption are even higher and I don't really see a killer app for now.
 
Last edited:

Spectacle

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
8,363
This thread is going to be great for pointing to in 5-10 years as one of those "mobile phones are stupid" or "the Internet is never going to take off" moments.

I was an early adopter of mobile phones and the internet and both proved immediately useful.
How "early" are we talking about here? The internet is from the late 60's and mobile phones from the early 80's...
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
The first VR sets I tried weren't some Nintendo gimmicks, but ones with actual 3D objects, displaying something akin to what people imagined "VR" back in the day (think "The Matrix" in the Shadowrun games). So the problem wasn't red dots, but that the novelty wore off pretty quickly.

The pictures of the cell phone and the Newton just prove that people won't mass-adopt things that are expensive and inconvenient, even if they are useful. I'd be really astonished if there will be widespread adoption of VR unless they get rid of the isolating headsets.

Next point is that even now AAA titles are becoming too expensive for their own good. Producing a AAA title in VR will cost even more. Unless procedural generation makes a huge let forward, those "hyper-realistic" experiences will be comparatively small.

Maybe it will prove to be a useful add-on for experiencing sports-events, shows and performances and adult entertainment from across the world. Unlike cell phones and the internet, it's something (a luxury) you need time and space for, so the hurdles for adoption are even higher and I don't really see a killer app for now.
Even the higher-end stuff was hilariously underspecced and didn't exactly deliver what was promised e.g. 263x230 resolution, 45° FoV making it look like you are staring at a TV through toilet rolls instead of 100°+ that almost envelops your entire Field of View: http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/vrmark and using magnetic tracking:


I took the easy way out because someone mentioned the "Virtual Boy" on page one.

Granted it's still very early days and the first commercial versions of this kind of new VR using mostly mobile technology that the mobile industry have been pushing the past decade will start hitting 2-3 months from now, but it's a lot closer to "iPad" than the 90s "Palm Pilot" version of VR. Once these things get out into retail shops and people get to put them on and experience what they have to offer (especially children and teenagers, the "mommy, mommy, I want!" factor is extremely high) I doubt the cat will ever really go back into the bag. Don't knock it till you try it.

A lot of the cheap $100 Mobile GearVR stuff that requires a Samsung Note is used for things like watching movies or series instead, since people can likely put them on during long flights or if they don't own a large screen and are alone, play around or "watch a movie" as if they are watching them on an IMAX screen or while on the moon: http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/wearables/gear-vr/

They will also "get rid of the isolating headsets" with time/at some point, but again that would take years of working on form factor and getting the technology down to look more like glasses or similar, the Vive already comes with external cameras for AR. I'd view these first early models more like "3dfx Voodoo" than "GeForce 880GTX".

Regarding AAA games, there's a lot less work required to "WOW" someone (especially the easily impressionable and children) in VR than it does on a monitor or TV screen, since you for instance can make them feel as if a Star Destroyer is falling on their head or the likes with about the same effort it'd require to do on a screen, but to a lot greater effect.

There are many other applications from entertainment: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/oculus-rift.79590/page-10#post-4021237 , art exhibits, attractions, industry production to Live sports/space mission broadcasts, education: https://www.kickstarter.com/project...tual-reality-experience-education/description and the likes, although gaming will be a very important part of that pushing the hard-core market early.

There are also already various major pron studios producing "content" for VR: http://www.vrpornix.com/
 
Last edited:

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
This thread is going to be great for pointing to in 5-10 years as one of those "mobile phones are stupid" or "the Internet is never going to take off" moments.

I was an early adopter of mobile phones and the internet and both proved immediately useful.
How "early" are we talking about here? The internet is from the late 60's and mobile phones from the early 80's...

I'd say comparatively about as early as VR early adopters are now. So late 80s / early 90s. We are taking about commercial, but pre-mass market adoption, not ivory tower adoption (so internet here equals email and mostly www).

Regarding AAA games, there's a lot less work required to "WOW" someone (especially the easily impressionable and children) in VR than it does on a monitor or TV screen, since you for instance can make them feel as if a Star Destroyer is falling on their head or the likes with about the same effort it'd require to do on a screen, but to a lot greater effect.

That's where I see a conceptual problem. You have to commit quite a lot of resources and inconveniencies (time, equipment, "social isolation") for a short immense, but ultimately rather "casual" experience. And it's not really kids that need a massive amount of stimulation to be absorbed by something. Kids can be totally focussed on the simplest things. It's adults, which have seen everything, who'd benefit from upping the "awesome" dosage.

There are many other applications from entertainment: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/oculus-rift.79590/page-10#post-4021237 , art exhibits, attractions, industry production to Live sports/space mission broadcasts, education: https://www.kickstarter.com/project...tual-reality-experience-education/description and the likes, although gaming will be a very important part of that pushing the hard-core market early.

There are also already various major pron studios producing "content" for VR: http://www.vrpornix.com/

Like I wrote, I see some applications in live events, etc. which are worth the commitment. But even porn seems to be doubtful if you don't live alone. If you live in your parents' basement, an isolating headset seems to be a bad idea. Also in porn, the most used medium is "sufficient" quality internet video, not some of the high definition "I can see every hair and skin bump Blu-ray" productions. So in this market, VR probably can go after the realdoll owners demographic.

---

Many DK2 owners are really excited though, so there is content, which, for them, justifies the considerable commitment required (and I'm not just talking about monetary commitment, that will be solved by technical advance). If something's worth it, price will mainly delay the adoption, not prevent it. Also the current price isn't too high, the first batches are virtually sold out.
 
Last edited:

bloodlover

Arcane
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
2,039
Can't wait till it becomes a standard in 10-15 years and we'll be able to play TES 10 with it.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
There is still no porn for it. Oculus, meet Betamax and HD DVD in the land where formats with not enough double anal penetrations go to die. :obviously:
 

Moink

Cipher
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Messages
669
It's been dead since facebook bought them, no one is going to spend $600 on something that doesn't do porn.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Like I wrote, I see some applications in live events, etc. which are worth the commitment. But even porn seems to be doubtful if you don't live alone. If you live in your parents' basement, an isolating headset seems to be a bad idea. Also in porn, the most used medium is "sufficient" quality internet video, not some of the high definition "I can see every hair and skin bump Blu-ray" productions. So in this market, VR probably can go after the realdoll owners demographic.
Pretty sure they're going after the "normal people watching pron" demographic, since the feeling of being present, able to look around and "seeing" your dick sucked by a pornstar or seeing them kissing is rather universal compared to low-quality internet video, although various degrees of degeneracy will likely be a cause of it - the use-case would probably be the same as normal pron, it's rather pointless discussing some of these things with people that haven't experienced any of the new HMDs and what they can do and how it feels looking and moving around a Virtual environment, which I assume you didn't but you'll see in due time:

Video has 13.5 Million views by the way, so there's that "pent up demand" HTC's been talking about to justify a higher price-point. :lol:

SJW buzzwords from the "reporter" aside this was also an interesting short docu: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/behind-the-scenes-of-tori-blacks-virtual-reality-porn-debut

Many DK2 owners are really excited though, so there is content, which, for them, justifies the considerable commitment required (and I'm not just talking about monetary commitment, that will be solved by technical advance). If something's worth it, price will mainly delay the adoption, not prevent it. Also the current price isn't too high, the first batches are virtually sold out.
Yes. And btw. Steam already had a "VR category" for a while, I've been making ample use of it for the DK2: http://store.steampowered.com/search/?category2=31#sort_by=_ASC&category1=998&category2=31&page=1

Amazon also recently set up a VR Hub in various languages: http://www.amazon.co.uk/b?node=8521661031 https://www.amazon.de/b?node=8556760031

A lot of this stuff is going to be coming, and it's going to be coming fast.

Anyway, here's some more new stuff from CES 2016:





The original Announcement for the Oculus Rift: https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/oculus-rift-pre-orders-now-open-first-shipments-march-28/
newblog1.2.jpg

riftblogcomplete.1.jpg
 
Last edited:

Haba

Harbinger of Decline
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,871,744
Location
Land of Rape & Honey ❤️
Codex 2012 MCA Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
imagine getting watched by someone while you are climbing a mountain in your VR headset?
Why would someone be looking at you while you play? This is not someone you'd use in company, except to make someone try it. Or to look at a wymbin's tits while she plays.

Now there is an idea... put that on a female friend so they can experience virtual porn. Rape them while they are immersed. Profit!
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom