• Deus Ex (2000) Director: VR is a fad
    145 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The golden;48049123]I'll believe you when good games come out that actually use the headset in a way that makes me want to spend $400+[/QUOTE] Honestly, I'm hoping there will be a trend of indie games utilizing the "you can look wherever and rotate objects and place them as if it were real space" mechanics. Like imagine if you handed the portal devs an oculus and said "portal but without portals and intead vr is your mechanic" stuff like that. I want a good sword game. Nothing more, in my head it doesnt even need textures, but a 'competitive' sword game. I dont know how movement would work but I would kill for a decent 1:1 prop sword - game sword type of game. Then do it again with guns. Counter strike goal based shooter, but you can see teammates perspectives. Theres a game concept go. I just want games with fun mechanics in mind, not whatever on rails sequel bullshit we're about receive by the truckload.
Every time these articles pop up I think of this: [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH0PLvVUsAAY0wc.png:large[/img] Always the same shit
[QUOTE=Sally;48054290]Look in the video subform for where that was posted... its real and is happening in ohio[/QUOTE] Utah* A sunny 30 mile drive from the NSA datacenter.
[QUOTE=Sally;48054290]Look in the video subform for where that was posted... its real and is happening in ohio[/QUOTE] The point was it doesn't exist yet, and all footage that exists so far is basically concept art and marketing. It's kind of like the Microsoft Holo-lens presentations. It's put together to give you an idea of what the technology will eventually evolve into. Not what the first generation will be like.
He never really words his points very well to be honest. I think the point being made is it's not going to change gaming forever or be super beneficial. VR needs software that specifically utilizes it and not a lot of people are gonna be cashing out for games that use it to the extent where the game itself benefits from the inclusion. First Person games are the easiest to integrate it with but beyond that you can't just slap it on other existing things and hope for it to stick. VR games are gonna be a huge gamble for big name developers and if they don't profit from it then it will definitely just become a phased out peripheral.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48053482]That doesn't quite make sense. Since VR headsets use stereoscopy to display content, that should, by default, create a depth of field. Depth of field is a function of the way your brain recognizes stereoscopy and focus. It's in your eyes, not in your goggles, so if the 3D implementation is done properly it should do it automatically.[/QUOTE] The rift is just a flat screen though, there's only one plane to focus on, so in the future HMDs will have to rely on some kind of eye-tracking+inexpensive DOF
[QUOTE=Scot;48054904]I think he means focus as in everything else going blurry when you hold your hand up to your face. That's something goggles can't replicate accurately because they don't know where you're looking exactly.[/QUOTE] Again, though, how does it work in real life? The world doesn't actually blur, your eyes do that themselves. Since VR displays objects using the same system your eyes are used to seeing, the fact that it's VR shouldn't matter. It's the same optical system that causes blurring in the first place. [editline]26th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=halfer;48055699]The rift is just a flat screen though, there's only one plane to focus on, so in the future HMDs will have to rely on some kind of eye-tracking+inexpensive DOF[/QUOTE] Again, this doesn't matter. As far as your eyes are concerned, the Rift is no different than a pair of glasses. The optics go a long way to make it more than just a flat screen in front of your face.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48055703]Again, though, how does it work in real life? The world doesn't actually blur, your eyes do that themselves. Since VR displays objects using the same system your eyes are used to seeing, the fact that it's VR shouldn't matter. It's the same optical system that causes blurring in the first place. [editline]26th June 2015[/editline] Again, this doesn't matter. As far as your eyes are concerned, the Rift is no different than a pair of glasses. The optics go a long way to make it more than just a flat screen in front of your face.[/QUOTE] Blurring is not "caused". Sharp images are "caused" [quote]Accommodation (Acc) is the process by which the vertebrate eye changes optical power to maintain a clear image or focus on an object [b]as its distance varies[/b][/quote] The lens changes its shape to focus the rays onto the back of your retina [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Accommodation_%28PSF%29.svg/620px-Accommodation_%28PSF%29.svg.png[/img]
That's absolutely a semantic difference. Whether blurring is caused or sharp images are caused is irrelevant. Stereoscopy already provides depth of field. If you've ever used a stereoscope, like a Viewmaster, you'd know that you can focus on different elements in the scene and have focus change depending on perceived depth. The same applies to stereoscopic cinema, and the Rift.
The one thing that will utterly destroy the idea of VR being a fad will be if the firmware can handle games not developed for VR. If a game not being designed for VR just means no 3D or head-tracking but still getting an awesome immersive display, then it won't be a peripheral you put back on the shelf every time you play a non-compatible game. Motion controllers, head-tracking software, and alternate control systems (joysticks/racing wheels) are not mainstream because they're limited to a small subset of games in very specific genres. If VR headsets provide an immersive experience for all games [i]and[/i] 3D and head-tracking for anything that supports them, then it's a straight upgrade to the gaming experience, not a niche peripheral.
[QUOTE=Orkel;48055401]Every time these articles pop up I think of this: Always the same shit[/QUOTE] Can you not subtly insult the opposition? It's pretty stupid. I dislike the idea of VR as it is right now, and while it is listed in that bingo card in a way (No Consumer Product Yet). I do think it is a valid arguement. Not to mention I think you lot are way too early to call it the "Next big thing".
[QUOTE=woolio1;48055792]That's absolutely a semantic difference. Whether blurring is caused or sharp images are caused is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you're right. I just couldn't really get my point across, that's irrelevant know [QUOTE=woolio1;48055792]Stereoscopy already provides depth of field. If you've ever used a stereoscope, like a Viewmaster, you'd know that you can focus on different elements in the scene and have focus change depending on perceived depth. The same applies to stereoscopic cinema, and the Rift.[/QUOTE] Could you give me any "popular scientific" (or just scientific) source for that?
[QUOTE=Orkel;48055401]Every time these articles pop up I think of this: [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH0PLvVUsAAY0wc.png:large[/img] Always the same shit[/QUOTE] But Motion Sickness, Eye strain, lack of a proper consumer level model and it being too expensive are perfectly valid concerns. If someone gets motion sick easily or suffers from eye strain when using it then a VR headset is useless for them. While VR does look nice I do not think it is going to be nearly as prolific as people think, they key thing to remember here is perceived value, not everyone will have had the chance to test one of the VR kits and those that have not will probably not see a VR headset as anything worth the money. Most people cannot afford to spend £200 on something that will "enhance Immersion" and would probably rather save up another £100 and get a new TV or games console. In the case of PC gamers they might rather upgrade their CPU/GPU and play GTA V at a silky smooth FPS with the settings maxxed out. That and requiring a more powerful machine means that yes while they might have £200 to blow, they would also need to spend another £300 to get their Computer up to scratch. In short it is probably going to be a somewhat niche product, great for enthusiasts but the average Joe will probably give it a pass. Now to end a little more positively, yes VR does look nice and the fact that tech is getting better and better is a good sign. I imagine that within my lifetime I will see a VR device not much heavier than a pair of sunglasses with a thick frame (or those Sunglasses with a build in MP3 player if you remember such things) that is powered by your smartphone... heck I give it about ten years before we are making smart-phones that are as powerful as mid to high range computers are now. My current smartphone more powerful than some peoples laptops, it can emulate PS1 games without even breaking stride. Perhaps this generation of VR won't properly catch on but neither did the first consumer accessible PC's or TV's or Smartphones. These things do tend to take about 5 to 10 years to go from niche to fully prolific.
Weren't the motion sickness issues people were having with the Oculus Rift hugely reduced by upgrades to the display technology and breakthroughs in the way that the images are broadcast? I forget the technical terms for it, but I remember reading an article explaining a system they started working on with the Rift that killed the display between frames, essentially adding an imperceptibly tiny flash of black across the screen that ended pixel ghosting or whatever to get rid of the "floaty" feeling that was making people feel so ill. Further upgrades removed the screen door effect, and improvements to resolution gave much clearer imagery at better fields of view. Granted, I've never gotten to use an Oculus Rift, but if they were able to work out the motion sickness kink and improve the display quality enough that it really is like "slipping on a pair of glasses," then I don't see how the Rift could fail. The technology is so impressive, the potentials are so huge; the Rift isn't going to be a must-have for video games, it will be utilized by tons of things. Modeling, art, movies, music visualizers, architectural design, real estate, education, therapy, remotely operate vehicles, countless of applications and programs on the computer that improve workflow by allowing a limitless monitor and a 3D workspace, and so on and so forth. Games are going to be very cool with VR, but its the potential outside of them that really has me stoked. As a movie buff, I can't wait to have the virtual equivalent of an at-home IMAX theater. There are already early virtual movie theater programs that are supposed to be very cool. They just plop you in a seat in a big movie theater and play any movie on the theater's "screen," effectively simulating a full-size movie theater screen. With a pair of good headphones and a VR headset, this would be even better than going to the actual theater for me, at least when watching movies solo. And, personally speaking, a Rift would be worth it to me for that feature alone. [img]http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/rtovr-virtual-cinema-mediachooser-featured.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=halfer;48055858]Yeah, you're right. I just couldn't really get my point across, that's irrelevant know Could you give me any "popular scientific" (or just scientific) source for that?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://enpub.fulton.asu.edu/resp/vpqm/vpqm10/Proceedings_VPQM2010/vpqm_p31.pdf"]There's this.[/URL] It seems to indicate that, in stereoscopic 3D, there's some other blur aside from the depth of field already present, which would suggest that your eyes generate some sort of depth of field in stereoscopic 3D regardless of actual depth. As well, I've seen the effect in-action, using a Google Cardboard. Even without actual depth of field, your brain steps in and fakes it. It's a really interesting thing to experience firsthand.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48055893]Weren't the motion sickness issues people were having with the Oculus Rift hugely reduced by upgrades to the display technology and breakthroughs in the way that the images are broadcast? I forget the technical terms for it, but I remember reading an article explaining a system they started working on with the Rift that killed the display between frames, essentially adding an imperceptibly tiny flash of black across the screen that ended pixel ghosting or whatever to get rid of the "floaty" feeling that was making people feel so ill. Further upgrades removed the screen door effect, and improvements to resolution gave much clearer imagery at better fields of view. Granted, I've never gotten to use an Oculus Rift, but if they were able to work out the motion sickness kink and improve the display quality enough that it really is like "slipping on a pair of glasses," then I don't see how the Rift could fail. The technology is so impressive, the potentials are so huge; the Rift isn't going to be a must-have for video games, it will be utilized by tons of things. Modeling, art, movies, music visualizers, architectural design, real estate, education, therapy, remotely operate vehicles, countless of applications and programs on the computer that improve workflow by allowing a limitless monitor and a 3D workspace, and so on and so forth. Games are going to be very cool with VR, but its the potential outside of them that really has me stoked. As a movie buff, I can't wait to have the virtual equivalent of an at-home IMAX theater. There are already early virtual movie theater programs that are supposed to be very cool. They just plop you in a seat in a big movie theater and play any movie on the theater's "screen," effectively simulating a full-size movie theater screen. With a pair of good headphones and a VR headset, this would be even better than going to the actual theater for me, at least when watching movies solo. And, personally speaking, a Rift would be worth it to me for that feature alone. [img]http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/rtovr-virtual-cinema-mediachooser-featured.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] It'd be nice to lay in bed and watch a movie.
[QUOTE=thisguy123;48055892]If someone gets motion sick easily or suffers from eye strain when using it then a VR headset is useless for them. [/QUOTE] I don't get this complaint either. With the Rift build I got to try I didn't feel any eye strain or motion sickness. The motion tracking was actually damn near perfect as far as I can tell. If the overwhelming majority of people don't have problems, what's your point? Yeah, if someone is missing an arm then a console controller is useless for them- so what? The inability for a small subset of the potential market to use it won't make or break the system.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48056179][URL="http://enpub.fulton.asu.edu/resp/vpqm/vpqm10/Proceedings_VPQM2010/vpqm_p31.pdf"]There's this.[/URL] It seems to indicate that, in stereoscopic 3D, there's some other blur aside from the depth of field already present, which would suggest that your eyes generate some sort of depth of field in stereoscopic 3D regardless of actual depth. As well, I've seen the effect in-action, using a Google Cardboard. Even without actual depth of field, your brain steps in and fakes it. It's a really interesting thing to experience firsthand.[/QUOTE] This whole time I've been seeing you post about the depth of field thing wanting to say that, I'm pretty sure you've used it and you should know better that there is no DOF blurring in VR. I don't know why you keep trying to convince people otherwise when you should have physically seen for yourself it's not there. In Oculus, what still happens is the double vision of something you're not focusing on. For example if you hold your hand a foot from your face and look at something behind it, you'll see two hands. This is true both in VR and in real life because your eyes/cameras are not in the same place and are seeing different images. What does not happen in VR, is the blurring. This is because all the light is physically focused into your eyes such that you see a sharp image. No matter what illusory depth you believe you are focusing on, the full image is still focused sharply into your eyes. In real life, only the light of the thing you are focusing on (the background in this example) is focused into your eyes. This is what blurs out your hand in real life, and [B]not[/B] what happens in VR. The depth you see in VR is an illusion gained from stereoscopic cameras, not a true one.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48056337]I don't get this complaint either. With the Rift build I got to try I didn't feel any eye strain or motion sickness. The motion tracking was actually damn near perfect as far as I can tell. If the overwhelming majority of people don't have problems, what's your point? Yeah, if someone is missing an arm then a console controller is useless for them- so what? The inability for a small subset of the potential market to use it won't make or break the system.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure where you plucked this overwhelming majority number from, and it's besides the point, I was making reference to one person not wanting to buy a VR system because they get motion sick and being ridiculed and generalized for it, as exampled by Orkels "VR Hater" bingo thing. If someone says "I don't want a VR headset because it makes my head spin" then that should be fine, someone's reaction should not be "Millions of others don't get a spinny head, what the fuck is YOUR problem VR hater?"
As for the topic at hand, Jeep-Eep took the words right out of my mouth on the first page. I think [I]at worst[/I] VR will be a niche, but essential peripheral for certain genres like joysticks and TrackIR are today. Will it 100% replace your monitor and keyboard? No, that's silly. It's like thinking smart phones or a joystick replaces your computer or a mouse and keyboard. Just because something isn't replacing what you already use now, doesn't mean it isn't opening a great many doors to new games and experiences. I think the only people who don't see VR as a potential game changer in both video games and the larger world are the people who haven't tried a good headset that was properly calibrated with a good demo. All of which by the way, will get significantly easier once the CV1 is released. I realize how elitist that might sound, and I hate sounding like that, but it really is the truth. I was as jaded and cynical about VR as most of the skeptics here are. If not more, because I was looking at it from the point of view of a game developer, not just a user. I was [B]not[/B] immediately sold on the concept when I first tried them on. In fact, I was really critical and kind of unimpressed. However, I also went into this with the mindset of "this is just a fancy TrackIR." After playing around with a DK2 myself at length, and doing some light development for it though, I started to realize that there are so many things that are now possible that I had never even considered in the context of video games. That's the thing. It's not "just" a TrackIR. Sure, you could use it like that, and honestly that's what I'd still be buying a headset for because I love flight/racing sims, but it's [I]so much more[/I] than just that. This combination of head tracking, depth perception, and motion controls is unprecedented and throws everything you know about video games, and what can be done, on its head. This is a revolution in both how you make games, and play them, on the scale of the jump from 2D to 3D. It's going to be a very exciting next few years as these things start to become more commonplace, and games that simply couldn't be made with a monitor and mouse/keyboard get built for them.
Every time i hear someone talk about VR who has used a VR headset, they have all said that you have to experience it to believe it. Once you do you will never doubt it. I'm personally all on board with VR just because it actually brings complete immersion to the game you want to immerse yourself in. I think this tech con be applied effectively to a few genres of games, but it probably wont fair as well in the genres that utilize top down views, 3rd person views, isometric views, etc. I really think VR will shine in the first person view. games like call of duty could benefit from it a lot since its incredibly cinematic, but always from a first person perspective. VR is about transporting you into somebody else's shoes. It won't change the industry, but it will be the best addition to the industry we've seen in a long time.
He just wrote an article about it. [url]https://warrenspector.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/so-lets-talk-about-vr/[/url]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48056314]It'd be nice to lay in bed and watch a movie.[/QUOTE] [img]http://neatstufftobuy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/prism-glasses-1.jpg[/img] enguard
[QUOTE=thisguy123;48055892]But Motion Sickness, Eye strain, lack of a proper consumer level model and it being too expensive are perfectly valid concerns. If someone gets motion sick easily or suffers from eye strain when using it then a VR headset is useless for them. [/QUOTE] There is no possible eye strain while wearing a Rift.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;48057344]There is no possible eye strain while wearing a Rift.[/QUOTE] Eye strain occurs when you look at anything for a long period of time. You can never remove eye strain, its just people have different thresholds.
[QUOTE=thisguy123;48055892]But Motion Sickness, Eye strain, lack of a proper consumer level model and it being too expensive are perfectly valid concerns. If someone gets motion sick easily or suffers from eye strain when using it then a VR headset is useless for them. While VR does look nice I do not think it is going to be nearly as prolific as people think, they key thing to remember here is perceived value, not everyone will have had the chance to test one of the VR kits and those that have not will probably not see a VR headset as anything worth the money. Most people cannot afford to spend £200 on something that will "enhance Immersion" and would probably rather save up another £100 and get a new TV or games console. In the case of PC gamers they might rather upgrade their CPU/GPU and play GTA V at a silky smooth FPS with the settings maxxed out. That and requiring a more powerful machine means that yes while they might have £200 to blow, they would also need to spend another £300 to get their Computer up to scratch. In short it is probably going to be a somewhat niche product, great for enthusiasts but the average Joe will probably give it a pass. Now to end a little more positively, yes VR does look nice and the fact that tech is getting better and better is a good sign. I imagine that within my lifetime I will see a VR device not much heavier than a pair of sunglasses with a thick frame (or those Sunglasses with a build in MP3 player if you remember such things) that is powered by your smartphone... heck I give it about ten years before we are making smart-phones that are as powerful as mid to high range computers are now. My current smartphone more powerful than some peoples laptops, it can emulate PS1 games without even breaking stride. Perhaps this generation of VR won't properly catch on but neither did the first consumer accessible PC's or TV's or Smartphones. These things do tend to take about 5 to 10 years to go from niche to fully prolific.[/QUOTE] Motion sickness has been almost entirely eliminated from up-to-date VR HMDs, it's a matter of head tracking, so that your inner ear and perspective agree, and now that that exists, it eliminates any hints of motion sickness for all but the most extreme cases. If someone can't use them because of that, that's fine, its just that you can't bring it up as a crippling issue for VR when only a very small subset of uses experience that problem, and those people should be aware of their motion sickness before going in. As for eye strain, there is no clinical/scientific evidence for LCD/OLED screens damaging or straining your eyes. The eye strain with a normal computer comes from the brightness difference between the screen and surrounding environment, and having to focus on a flat plane that is relatively close to your face for hours at a time. VR skips over this problem by having your eyes focus to a theoretically infinite distance, eliminating that eye strain. As for price... It looks like oculus CV1 is going to be around $400, which is hardly an outrageous price if they can deliver a great experience. I think it will drop, but the price is by no means debilitating.
[QUOTE=Zombii;48057543] As for price... It looks like oculus CV1 is going to be around $400, which is hardly an outrageous price if they can deliver a great experience. I think it will drop, but the price is by no means debilitating.[/QUOTE] That's more than a console and a videocard, both I would argue give more chances of better experiences than a single peripheral. I definitely selling well once the price gets down to 200 dollars or less. But at 400? No.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;48057344]There is no possible eye strain while wearing a Rift.[/QUOTE] I obviously haven't played with the CV1, but speaking from experience with the DK2 it's definitely possible. There were two main causes for it. If the lenses were slightly dirty, everything is kind of off and slightly blurry. I couldn't look through it for more than a few minutes before I just couldn't take it anymore. The other thing that caused it for me looking out into the distance (like you would in a racing game or Elite Dangerous) for more than 20-30 minutes at a time. If I let this go on for too long (a couple hours), I could end up with a headache that lasted for most of the day. I think what caused it was that my eyes were trying to bring something into focus that they just physically couldn't because the DK2 is too blurry. Getting your eyes into the sweet spot so that everything was as sharp as possible is critical, but I had difficulty with that because of my glasses. It varies from person to person too. I don't think my friend ever got eyestrain and he's used it for longer than I have. CV1 is also supposed to be significantly sharper, lighter, and with much larger sweet spot. Between all that, I'm not too concerned about this for CV1. All feedback we've heard on it so far says that it's a substantial improvement in all the factors that cause eyestrain.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48057520]Eye strain occurs when you look at anything for a long period of time. You can never remove eye strain, its just people have different thresholds.[/QUOTE] we've gone through this already eye strain is caused by focusing on an object that's extremely close to you, or one that's extremely bright against a dark background. Looking at the horizon in VR is no different from looking at the horizon in real life. If anything it's [I]less[/I] straining because it isn't as bright. [editline]26th June 2015[/editline] The problems people are bringing up with nausea and motion sickness and whatever aren't these magical afflictions caused by VR, they're issues with the technology. Issues that have already been identified and in many instances solved. Even if the CV1 did cause nausea, which we have every reason to believe it doesn't, but even if it [I]did[/I], that wouldn't be an issue with VR. That'd be an issue with that specific headset. An issue that's entirely solvable.
[QUOTE=Zombii;48057543] If someone can't use them because of that, that's fine, its just that you can't bring it up as a crippling issue for VR when only a very small subset of uses experience that problem, and those people should be aware of their motion sickness before going in. [/QUOTE] Again you're missing my point, I said that if a specific individual chooses not to use an AR device because of problems with motion sickness/eye-strain they get branded "AR Haters" by the likes of whoever made that AR Hater bingo square. They themselves are not against AR in it's entirety but on an individual level choose not to use AR, but there are some vocal few who seem to be acting like anyone who dares not use an AR headset are Luddite's and make sweeping generalisations when people who have some bad eyes just can't use an utterly computer accessory. Also $400 is a BIT much for the average Joe, I personally am not prepared to fork that amount of money out for some immersive experiences, that work just fine without. It reminds me of the TrackIR systems that game such as ARMA can use, sure it was neat but you needed a massive amount of expensive kit and it all seemed just a little too much faff to be able to look around while you play a game. Again, I'm not trying to decry AR as a waste of time, I'm just saying that as it stands I don't think it's going to be utilized to a degree that warrants $400. It's a question of money, not much else. [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;48057344]There is no possible eye strain while wearing a Rift.[/QUOTE] Not gonna lie, that does sound a little indoctrinated.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.