Hey don't worry Ross, we green eyed people have it even worse.
He's right that everything is fucked, but the fact that he hasn't tried the headsets really, really hurts his case. I'm just five minutes in and a huge amount of what he has said is already wrong.
I'm just gonna go ahead and correct a couple of things from his pros and cons page:
The Vive is supposed to have the [I]"small 'sweet spot" for viewing'[/I] point more so than the Rift, since the Rift is said to have more clarity all over the lens. The 'minor screendoor effect' is also stated in a way that makes it look like it's the same on both headsets, but the Rift actually has less screen door effect. And also, the [I]'pronounced circular ridges in lens'[/I] are not visible when you're wearing it.
Hopefully soon there will be more opportunities for everybody to try the different headsets, since there is no way to show or explain what looking through them really looks like. I can sit here and say that the Vive has great FOV, that you don't notice the glare effect and that I honestly forgot that screen door effect was a thing, and that the only issue I personally have is the loss of clarity beyond the "sweet spot". But you'll have no way to relate to it and will very likely have a different opinion on which issue is annoying and which you forgot existed. All I can say is that it really is great, it looks great, feels great, everything is great and I don't think it matters what headset you get if you're just concerned about the visuals.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
His idea of making old games VR compatible just because they're made with 3 dimensional geometry is an idea that will and should die hard. VR does not work [I]at all[/I] with conventional mechanics. That's also the reason why VorpX [I](and I'm guessing the other two as well)[/I] sucks major ass.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
Oh god, please make him stop, he's actually excited about Nvidia just 'automatically' converting anything 3d into 'VR'. I can almost guarantee that any 'supported' game is going to be awful and nauseating as all fuck unless it is specifically made to work with VR.
Actually, VorpX might be good for this guy. VorpX has an option that basically disables actual VR of the game itself, and instead places you in a VR lounge with a huge hovering screen in front of you, on which you can play your game with 3D. That actually works fairly well, you get to play a game on a monitor while seeing it in actual 3D, without the nausea.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
Wow, he actually talks about exactly that at 18:10-ish. Yep. That's exactly VorpX, and it works exactly like what he wants.
This is actually hard to listen to because almost every point he makes is overshadowed by the fact that he has no clue what he's talking about because he never tried a headset, along with the fact that some of his points are just straight up objectively wrong. Never thought I'd be annoyed by Ross Scott but I guess nobody's perfect.
Like I get that the launch is pretty garbage but all the software/hardware complaints he has are either wrong or redundant.
A 25 minute rant about VR, presented by somebody that hasn't tried modern VR. Why would anyone pay even the slightest attention to this guy?
I like Ross but the fact he hasn't even tried them and is going purely off of others reviews kinda takes away a lot of legitimacy this video has.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
Oh wait he's got a dev kit
This is such an odd video to make and then admit right at the beginning that you don't have a lot of experience with the subject matter
Which is especially weird because his videos are typically very well researched
He's not wrong though, VR launch has been kind of messy, but it's new technology after all
Clearly some people haven't actually fucking watched this, or at the very least haven't watched it all, because he HAS a fucking Oculus Dev kit and has tried the Oculus Civilian model.
So a lot of you people saying he hasn't tried it, so his opinions are invalid are talking out of your ass.
[QUOTE=jonu67;50575626]Clearly some people haven't watched this because he HAS a fucking Occulus Dev kit and has tried the Occulus Civilian model.
So a lot of you people saying he hasn't tried it, so his opinions are invalid are talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
The fact that he hasn't used both headsets for a while each hurts his case a lot. It doesn't invalidate everything he says, it just severely hurts his case. Even if he did have a lot of experience with the CV1, a ton of his points are still wrong. And also, his entire mindset skews everything. He doesn't have an interest in virtual reality, he just wants his games in 3D. He's essentially complaining that a product isn't very good at being another product.
[QUOTE=jonu67;50575626]Clearly some people haven't actually fucking watched this, or at the very least haven't watched it all, because he HAS a fucking Oculus Dev kit and has tried the Oculus Civilian model.
So a lot of you people saying he hasn't tried it, so his opinions are invalid are talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
He has a DK1
There are people [i]making their own HMDs[/i] that are better than the DK1.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50575660][B]The fact that he hasn't used both headsets for a while each hurts his case a lot.[/B] It doesn't invalidate everything he says, it just severely hurts his case. Even if he did have a lot of experience with the CV1, a ton of his points are still wrong. And also, his entire mindset skews everything. He doesn't have an interest in virtual reality, he just wants his games in 3D. He's essentially complaining that a product isn't very good at being another product.[/QUOTE]
"He should drop $1400 before his opinion is valid" and "No guys he's [I]wrong, [/I]he doesn't want the [I]right [/I]games!" combined doesn't make for a very fantastic argument. I know I won't step foot near VR until there are multiple expansive games that use it and use it well, considering it's the price of a decent PC on it's own and all I see coming out for VR is these pathetic little games that nobody will play for more than a half hour. Fallout 4 is the only VR game that interests me because it's an actual game and not a glorified practice program
I can already see people didn't watch and are getting the pitchforks ready.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50575849]"He should drop $1400 before his opinion is valid" and "No guys he's [I]wrong, [/I]he doesn't want the [I]right [/I]games!" combined doesn't make for a very fantastic argument. I know I won't step foot near VR until there are multiple expansive games that use it and use it well, considering it's the price of a decent PC on it's own and all I see coming out for VR is these pathetic little games that nobody will play for more than a half hour. Fallout 4 is the only VR game that interests me because it's an actual game and not a glorified practice program[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone would blame you for wanting to wait a bit for VR, even people who regular the VR thread and are super hyped about it often agree. You're totally wrong to say those are the only type of game that exist though, you've either not even tried to look or scrolled through the first page of games on steam and then decided to form your opinion entirely based off it. As far as games that aren't shooters, there's audioshield, the climb, chronos, etc. TBH tho while I wouldn't say there's a massive variety of games out right now I still think it's better than the launch of virtually every console that's ever come out. This is a brand new launch, the things only shipped very recently so it's unreasonable to judge it as if it was a platform that was out for years and should have a massive library of games
[QUOTE=Elspin;50575927]I don't think anyone would blame you for wanting to wait a bit for VR, even people who regular the VR thread and are super hyped about it often agree. You're totally wrong to say those are the only type of game that exist though, you've either not even tried to look or scrolled through the first page of games on steam and then decided to form your opinion entirely based off it. As far as games that aren't shooters, there's audioshield, the climb, chronos, etc. TBH tho while I wouldn't say there's a massive variety of games out right now I still think it's better than the launch of virtually every console that's ever come out. This is a brand new launch, the things only shipped very recently so it's unreasonable to judge it as if it was a platform that was out for years and should have a massive library of games[/QUOTE]
I am being kinda hyperbolic. I do know there's more than just shooting galleries out there, but honestly, the only VR game to me that stands out (not just talking about shooting games, I mean overall) is Hover Junkers.
I guess when I think VR, I think the games we have now, but in VR, with new movement mechanics. That's all I really want out of it, and I just don't see much appeal in the VR games I see released.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
I defintely don't expect it to have a library of AAA quality games right out the gate, either, don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against the medium, I think VR has huge promise, I just don't have any interest in the current stuff that's out.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50575972]I am being kinda hyperbolic. I do know there's more than just shooting galleries out there, but honestly, the only VR game to me that stands out (not just talking about shooting games, I mean overall) is Hover Junkers.
I guess when I think VR, I think [b]the games we have now, but in VR, with new movement mechanics[/b]. That's all I really want out of it, and I just don't see much appeal in the VR games I see released.[/QUOTE]
There's unfortunately a pretty big barrier relating to motion sickness, that kind of VR support is honestly not too hard to hack in and is present in several major games (skyrim, for example), but the real issue is locomotion. If you use a joystick to move yourself around while you're standing stationary you get pretty uncomfortable pretty quick. I do want to see some more variety of games myself and some bigger solutions to VR locomotion but all I'm trying to say is [i]for a brand new launch[/i] VR is doing totally fine. The xbox 360 debuted with nothing but call of duty, sports games none of us likely care about, kameo and perfect dark zero, games people forgot about in about 3 days v:v:v
it's rare that there are people that have actual valid arguments on why they're not buying into vr who both tried it and own it
it's funny because most of the time, like 9/10 people who are against it, have never even tried it (an actual proper device, not those shitty google cardbox or samsung gear vr things) and/or do not have the money to get it
[QUOTE=srobins;50575002]A 25 minute rant about VR, presented by somebody that hasn't tried modern VR. Why would anyone pay even the slightest attention to this guy?[/QUOTE]
Ross is generally a pretty smart dude who has great insight on things, but he doesn't really understand modern VR enough to smash it.
he complains about the circles in the lenses. Ok fair but when you put the headset on you don't see them at all. They're a part of the illusion.
[t]http://uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_85911.jpg[/t]
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=jonu67;50575626]Clearly some people haven't actually fucking watched this, or at the very least haven't watched it all, because he HAS a fucking Oculus Dev kit and has tried the Oculus Civilian model.
So a lot of you people saying he hasn't tried it, so his opinions are invalid are talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
the dev kits aren't nearly as good of the release models. Both the DK1 and DK2 aren't release products and in no way should be considered a full experience
doesn't surprise me they made him motion sick. He complained about being moved in VR and then continued trying games that did that using a headset that had no head tracking.
He hasn't tried it for real until he tries something better than a dk1 for an extended period of time. DK2 is better however so fair enough.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50575849]"He should drop $1400 before his opinion is valid"[/QUOTE]
It sucks that he would have to do that to try them both, but he would still need to try them to make the kinds of statements that he's making? I own one of them and therefore I'm cautious about making statements about the other, isn't that pretty logical? That non-VR games don't work very well and are nauseating when you try is a well known fact, so I don't see how I'm wrong to say that he has expectations that don't jive well with reality? Except he actually can get VorpX and he'll have exactly the solution he hypothesized later in the video.
Honestly I'm not exactly sure what I'm arguing here? He makes some points I guess, but the video is just [I]also[/I] littered with details that are just plain wrong, and it's strange to see him make arguments like [I]"Why can't they just make old games work in VR?"[/I] when there are obvious reasons why that doesn't work very well. The things he tries all seem to involve conventional controls and being flung across maps, which are things that are well known to be nauseating as hell.
[QUOTE]I know I won't step foot near VR until there are multiple expansive games that use it and use it well, considering it's the price of a decent PC on it's own and all I see coming out for VR is these pathetic little games that nobody will play for more than a half hour.[/QUOTE]
That's wise, and I agree for the most part. There's a couple of games that are fleshed out and fun, but the vast majority is not worth it at the moment.
[QUOTE]Fallout 4 is the only VR game that interests me because it's an actual game and not a glorified practice program[/QUOTE]
I hope they do it right. They have a lot of issues to solve going from conventional FPS to VR, but hopefully it'll work out.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50575660]The fact that he hasn't used both headsets for a while each hurts his case a lot. It doesn't invalidate everything he says, it just severely hurts his case. Even if he did have a lot of experience with the CV1, a ton of his points are still wrong. And also, his entire mindset skews everything. He doesn't have an interest in virtual reality, he just wants his games in 3D. He's essentially complaining that a product isn't very good at being another product.[/QUOTE]
all he'd have to do is play either a vive or Rift for at least an hour or more. I'm not sure how not using both makes his opinion less valid.
Is it also true that any case I make for/against VR hurt because I've only used a vive? How does that work?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50576108]
I hope they do it right. They have a lot of issues to solve going from conventional FPS to VR, but hopefully it'll work out.[/QUOTE]
From what I've heard, as of right now, they have it set up so you use the teleportation method, and then you can walk around your playing area, which sounds pretty good to me, but it's coming out in 2017, so they have plenty of time to mess around and see what works and what doesn't. They definitely seem like they're putting genuine effort into making it work well, too, given how far off it is.
I'm not interested in current VR because, well, if you can't move around without motion sickness there's not really a whole lot you can do.
Like pretty much the only major kind of game I can think of that'd work really well in VR at the moment is like, cockpit simulators. That's just incredibly limited, seems like a waste of money to be honest.
[QUOTE=elowin;50576200]I'm not interested current VR because, well, if you can't move around without motion sickness there's not really a whole lot you can do.
Like pretty much the only major kind of game I can think of that'd work really well in VR at the moment is like, cockpit simulators. That's just incredibly limited, seems like a waste of money to be honest.[/QUOTE]
That depends on the person though. I can use a controller to run around windlands in vr and I don't get motion sick. I've never been motion sick in my life though.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50576350]That depends on the person though. I can use a controller to run around windlands in vr and I don't get motion sick. I've never been motion sick in my life though.[/QUOTE]
That's still a lot of money to gamble on being one of those people who don't get motion sick by it.
[QUOTE=elowin;50576200]I'm not interested in current VR because, well, if you can't move around without motion sickness there's not really a whole lot you can do.
Like pretty much the only major kind of game I can think of that'd work really well in VR at the moment is like, cockpit simulators. That's just incredibly limited, seems like a waste of money to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if you're only thinking of current existing genres. There's a lot of new types of games that can be done with VR that weren't even possible, and certain genres that are fairly small and not that interesting normally can be actually turned into something awesome with VR. People have been designing games around technical limitations and strengths of the technology they're using for ages, once people actually start doing that for VR, that is when you're actually going to see really good VR games.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50575849]"He should drop $1400 before his opinion is valid" and "No guys he's [I]wrong, [/I]he doesn't want the [I]right [/I]games!" combined doesn't make for a very fantastic argument. I know I won't step foot near VR until there are multiple expansive games that use it and use it well, considering it's the price of a decent PC on it's own and all I see coming out for VR is these pathetic little games that nobody will play for more than a half hour. Fallout 4 is the only VR game that interests me because it's an actual game and not a glorified practice program[/QUOTE]
But it does make for a good argument? No one's saying he needs to buy the thing, he just needs to have tried it in some way. You wouldn't go review a movie after just seeing the trailer, would you? This is the exact same deal, you can't make criticisms or reviews or whatever on VR if you haven't actually tried it yourself personally. And using the Oculus DKs does not count for that at all.
[QUOTE=simkas;50576522]Yeah, if you're only thinking of current existing genres. There's a lot of new types of games that can be done with VR that weren't even possible, and certain genres that are fairly small and not that interesting normally can be actually turned into something awesome with VR. People have been designing games around technical limitations and strengths of the technology they're using for ages, once people actually start doing that for VR, that is when you're actually going to see really good VR games.[/QUOTE]
Any examples other than the aforementioned cockpit simulators?
Because that's really all I can think of off the top of my head, other than like, sitting on the couch simulators.
[QUOTE=elowin;50576200]I'm not interested in current VR because, well, if you can't move around without motion sickness there's not really a whole lot you can do.
Like pretty much the only major kind of game I can think of that'd work really well in VR at the moment is like, cockpit simulators. That's just incredibly limited, seems like a waste of money to be honest.[/QUOTE]
as a note, he mostly used the DK1 which had no head tracking, so it was a pretty shitty example
[QUOTE=elowin;50576531]Any examples other than the aforementioned cockpit simulators?
Because that's really all I can think of off the top of my head, other than like, sitting on the couch simulators.[/QUOTE]
Escape the room type puzzle rooms would be really interesting in VR. There's a game called "I Expect You to Die" that was made for the Oculus DK2 and in it you were just sitting in a car and you have to look all around you and search for things in your environment in order to solve puzzles and figure out how to escape. These type of games would be awesome, where you're just stuck in some small environment, you can freely walk around it using roomscale stuff and you have to search every nook and cranny to find objects that help you.
Also, stationary shooting games could work really well, people just need to stop making ones that are just "stand in one spot and shoot at zombies that just walk towards you" and make stuff that actually makes proper use of the fact that you can move around the environment.
[QUOTE=elowin;50576385]That's still a lot of money to gamble on being one of those people who don't get motion sick by it.[/QUOTE]
From a [I]"is it worth it"[/I] standpoint, it's absolutely the right decision to hold off and see where it all goes. VR at the moment is for enthusiasts who really want to be part of the first steps. As for motion sickness, I was really easily affected by it to begin with, but you really do get conditioned and eventually you won't feel it most of the time. It's going to be interesting to see where VR goes from here because of this. We're still seeing new methods of locomotion, some games just go with teleportation, some games have conventional movements and just expect people to be/get used to it.
And also, I still get sick in Elite: Dangerous so not even cockpit simulators are necessarily safe from motion sickness.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;50576531]Any examples other than the aforementioned cockpit simulators?
Because that's really all I can think of off the top of my head, other than like, sitting on the couch simulators.[/QUOTE]
It's really difficult to give this question a good answer, because the innovation just hasn't happened yet. VR as a whole is currently trying to solve locomotion outside of the player's physical play area. Hover Junkers is my best example at the moment of a game that innovates, and also Budget Cuts to a lesser degree. Artistic games like Oculus Medium and Tilt Brush are also fantastic VR only games. VR is in such early stages, there are no standard controls, no named and recognized game genres, it's all really a confusing and nonsensical mess right now. A lot of games go with the easy and arguably boring solutions, which is either giving the player teleportation abilities, or making the whole game stationary so you never have to move out of the play area. There will continue to be innovative solutions that go beyond this, and eventually someone will strike gold and find a solution that gets used, improved and modified widely across games. Or alternatively, the limitations will continue to be restrictive enough that it hurts the possibilities of what can be made, and VR won't ever be quite as amazing as we might have hoped...
I'm currently a fan of the locomotion solution where you "pull the world" around you, as you can do in Paintey and Hotdogs, Horseshoes and Handgrenades, and teleportation can actually also be really satisfying when there's a 'dash' effect to it instead of just immediately appearing where you pointed. It's exciting to see the experimentation happen, but it's also frustrating that we have no obvious fleshed out and good games. We'll just have to be patient.
The [I]"not that interesting normally"[/I] category is basically anything that incorporates hand tracking to do things like shoot guns and bows and what not. It just feels great to use, but again, for now we have tiny stupid games built around a couple of cool gameplay mechanics. Hopefully in the future, there will be an actual game around the awesome bow and arrow mechanic in The Lab.
Virtual Desktop kinda does what ross suggests as a solution towards the end.
though, I doubt it automatically converts games to stereoscopic.
[video=youtube;bjE6qXd6Itw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjE6qXd6Itw[/video]
[QUOTE=jonu67;50575626]Clearly some people haven't actually fucking watched this, or at the very least haven't watched it all, because he HAS a fucking Oculus Dev kit and has tried the Oculus Civilian model.
So a lot of you people saying he hasn't tried it, so his opinions are invalid are talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
Having an Oculus DK1 and [I]trying[/I] the CV1 is still not nearly enough experience with VR to make a 30 minute rant about what a mess it is. He should go try a Vive before he talks about VR for half an hour after only experiencing the bottom of the barrel.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
