Quantcast
Phil Spencer hopes VR isn't the future of gaming.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer hopes VR isn't the future of gaming.

Normchacho said:
Nem said:


I did think about it. I have said before that this can only make sense when coupled with the kinect, but then theres the problem of physical space traveling. Real VR needs to tap the brain signals to really happen. We are still away from that.

Now to the example of urgency, i see what you mean, but if you stand close to the TV screen the sense of falling will be higher aswell. Yeah, you are tricking your brain, but its still far from beeing a VR experience. Its albeit a very limited one. So limited that i dont see the point, especially when weighed against health and confort issues.

 

And since i would make a wall of text if i quoted everyone, Soundwave, the idea of VR is much older than the movie representations of the magic helmets that portal you to a different world (much less the bollocks Sega and Nintendo tried to feed us inspired on that, and now other companies aswell). The holo-deck idea itself was created in 1974 on the Star trek animation. I'm sure there may even be science fiction books with the idea maybe even earlier than that.


The problem here is that your definition of VR is wrong...

 

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/virtual-reality8.htm

 

The roots of VR stretch back to the 1959s and stem back to the desire for more immersive media. Not your personal fancy for Star Trek.


I bolded for you. Want to try again?

Look at your article:

  • A virtual world that appears real to any observer, seen through an HMD and augmented through three-dimensional sound and tactile stimuli
  • A computer that maintains the world model in real time
  • The ability for users to manipulate virtual objects in a realistic, intuitive way

Are you hands gamepads? Do you move yourself in this 3D space? Whatever you are having to see this fantasy is pretty good. I want some.

JRPGfan said:
Nem you are being purposefully obtuse, and have no idea what VR really is.

What you think VR is (which your wrong about) apparently matters more than listning to what others have to say, when they try to explain to you what is it and why that makes it such.

We might as well be talking to a brick wall.
So Im gonna end my discussion with you on the matter here.

My firm belief : Its real VR, its what its marketing as and theyre right to do so.


Obviously a company that wants my money knows things better than i. Its only natural. I should just give them my wallet no questions asked.

I have listened to what others have said. I am pretty sure i didnt dispute this is a partial form of VR. But, its not significantly different than what we already have. What i dispute is why call this VR and not what we already have since the difference is minimal.

You also talk like i came here to change people's opinions. I agreed with Phil spencer and gave my opinion... after that i have been dragged into a debate over my opinion.

I am not beeing obtuse. I am simply not beeing naive into thinking this is something its not.

If that is what you think then i am happy for you, but this isnt VR for me. Not even close, not in the classic definition nor the vision.

I also struggle to realise how people can't realise that this technology isnt revolutionary, practical or healthy. It doesnt require any sortof studies to see those. You just need common sense.

I even know that some phones already do this VR thing. You don't even need occulus or PS VR.

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how-to/gadget/how-make-google-cardboard-vr-headset-v2-3585298/

Phone in your face. Also revolutionary.

Don't agree? All fine.



Around the Network
Nem said:
Normchacho said:


The problem here is that your definition of VR is wrong...

 

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/virtual-reality8.htm

 

The roots of VR stretch back to the 1959s and stem back to the desire for more immersive media. Not your personal fancy for Star Trek.


I bolded for you. Want to try again?


That's correct, VR has been around at least as a concept since the 1950's. The first VR HMD actually game out in 1961 and was called Headsight. The VR we see today is an evolution of that same principle, which predates the Holodeck by more than a decade. So what we are getting today is most certainly VR.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Normchacho said:
Nem said:


I bolded for you. Want to try again?


That's correct, VR has been around at least as a concept since the 1950's. The first VR HMD actually game out in 1961 and was called Headsight. The VR we see today is an evolution of that same principle, which predates the Holodeck by more than a decade. So what we are getting today is most certainly VR.


Your "That's correct" is illogical. You article is a contest of "who thought up first". There is no way to verify that. I am assuming these people have wrote books in wich they envisioned these things, wich i'm not even sure. At wich point, its what i said in the first place. Even the concept itself you linked on the article, i already disputed as its not correspondant to what we have in these "new" devices. So, its not VR.

And ofc the first VR set that came out was what could be made. I wouldnt expect "the real thing" to have come out and us not knowing about it. This VR headset thing has been tried time and time again. Its sort of like 3D. The fad that comes and goes.

But you know... i feel like i am hurting sensibilities by beeing so blunt and honest about what i think this truly is (perhaps cause i already experienced this cycle come and go before). I don't mean to destroy dreams. If this is the VR you envisioned, then i am happy for you and for all of you that are happy with it. Props to you guys and hope you enjoy it.



Nem said:
Normchacho said:


That's correct, VR has been around at least as a concept since the 1950's. The first VR HMD actually game out in 1961 and was called Headsight. The VR we see today is an evolution of that same principle, which predates the Holodeck by more than a decade. So what we are getting today is most certainly VR.


Your "That's correct" is illogical. You article is a contest of "who thought up first". There is no way to verify that. I am assuming these people have wrote books in wich they envisioned these things, wich i'm not even sure. At wich point, its what i said in the first place. Even the concept itself you linked on the article, i already disputed as its not correspondant to what we have in these "new" devices. So, its not VR.

And ofc the first VR set that came out was what could be made. I wouldnt expect "the real thing" to have come out and us not knowing about it. This VR headset thing has been tried time and time again. Its sort of like 3D. The fad that comes and goes.

But you know... i feel like i am hurting sensibilities by beeing so blunt and honest about what i think this truly is (perhaps cause i already experienced this cycle come and go before). I don't mean to destroy dreams. If this is the VR you envisioned, then i am happy for you and for all of you that are happy with it. Props to you guys and hope you enjoy it.

Haha peoples issue with your point of view has nothing to do with you being blunt or honest. It's because you are being amazingly obtuse and the very premise of your assertion is just incorrect.

You seem to be under the notion that simply because modern VR isn't the ultimate expression of what VR can be, that it isn't VR at all. That's like saying that the International Space Station isn't a space station at all because it isn't the Death Star.

The current form of VR meets the definitons of what VR is. That's it, that's really the whole argument that needs to be had. Does what he have now meet the definition of VR? Currently, yes.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Breaking news from Sony - PSVR has been renamed to PS notVR. Shuhei said to nobody "We decided that due to PSVR not being a souped up version of the Holodecks from Star Trek, calling it this would be false advertising." Phil Spencer also confirmed that notVR might well be the future, so he is now a little bit worried, and will be bringing out his own notVR devices sometime in 2016.



Around the Network
Nem said:
Normchacho said:


That's correct, VR has been around at least as a concept since the 1950's. The first VR HMD actually game out in 1961 and was called Headsight. The VR we see today is an evolution of that same principle, which predates the Holodeck by more than a decade. So what we are getting today is most certainly VR.


Your "That's correct" is illogical. You article is a contest of "who thought up first". There is no way to verify that. I am assuming these people have wrote books in wich they envisioned these things, wich i'm not even sure. At wich point, its what i said in the first place. Even the concept itself you linked on the article, i already disputed as its not correspondant to what we have in these "new" devices. So, its not VR.

And ofc the first VR set that came out was what could be made. I wouldnt expect "the real thing" to have come out and us not knowing about it. This VR headset thing has been tried time and time again. Its sort of like 3D. The fad that comes and goes.

But you know... i feel like i am hurting sensibilities by beeing so blunt and honest about what i think this truly is (perhaps cause i already experienced this cycle come and go before). I don't mean to destroy dreams. If this is the VR you envisioned, then i am happy for you and for all of you that are happy with it. Props to you guys and hope you enjoy it.


Then i guess 3D isn't really 3D. Because it isn't really three dimensional, but only a illusion of three dimensional space. And the real 3D is real life, which comes and goes... so to say.



Hunting Season is done...

walsufnir said:
TheObserver said:
All of Microsoft wishes a lot of things these days, mostly cause every product they make is getting stomped by someone or another.


But that doesn't mean the products are worse. That said, Windows is still by far market leader, doesn't make it the best os out there.


Windows is the Market leader because of the corporate sector, where the boss doesn't want to spend the money to getsomething else and then train the employees to use that different OS. As far the consumers go who can make their own choices none of MS products are popular.



LSD, the closest we will ever get to holodecks.



Normchacho said:
Nem said:


Your "That's correct" is illogical. You article is a contest of "who thought up first". There is no way to verify that. I am assuming these people have wrote books in wich they envisioned these things, wich i'm not even sure. At wich point, its what i said in the first place. Even the concept itself you linked on the article, i already disputed as its not correspondant to what we have in these "new" devices. So, its not VR.

And ofc the first VR set that came out was what could be made. I wouldnt expect "the real thing" to have come out and us not knowing about it. This VR headset thing has been tried time and time again. Its sort of like 3D. The fad that comes and goes.

But you know... i feel like i am hurting sensibilities by beeing so blunt and honest about what i think this truly is (perhaps cause i already experienced this cycle come and go before). I don't mean to destroy dreams. If this is the VR you envisioned, then i am happy for you and for all of you that are happy with it. Props to you guys and hope you enjoy it.

Haha peoples issue with your point of view has nothing to do with you being blunt or honest. It's because you are being amazingly obtuse and the very premise of your assertion is just incorrect.

You seem to be under the notion that simply because modern VR isn't the ultimate expression of what VR can be, that it isn't VR at all. That's like saying that the International Space Station isn't a space station at all because it isn't the Death Star.

The current form of VR meets the definitons of what VR is. That's it, that's really the whole argument that needs to be had. Does what he have now meet the definition of VR? Currently, yes.


It is obtuse to say that aswell then. You obviously have the same stance.

Is handball, football? Because its played with a ball aswell? Its 20% football right? That is just ridiculous. No, its not football at all.

And i obviously totally disagree. But if its VR as you see it, then enjoy. Stop trying to tell me its true VR though, because i will not agree with that. 20% VR isnt VR to me, just like 20% football isnt football. Its handball.

Zoombael said:
 


Then i guess 3D isn't really 3D. Because it isn't really three dimensional, but only a illusion of three dimensional space. And the real 3D is real life, which comes and goes... so to say.


3D is simply the perception of depth. The 3D on say the 3DS for example is an illusion, but it accomplishes its purpose as its advertised.

Virtual reality as the name implies is an Illusion of reality. Something alot more difficult to accomplish. It can't be accomplished without a full illusion. You have to be able to touch, fool the sense of touch, you have to be able to smell, to taste. We currently only have sound and image with the perception of depth. The new devices simply isolate your sight so you can more easily focus on it. Its not adding anything we didnt have already. They are simply strapping it to our faces, just like have done in the past. They grab the current techbnology and strap it to your head and call it VR.

If its good for some, as i say, props to them. For me, its not, and thats that.



Stereoscopic 3D is much superior to VR, it solves all the shutting-out problems Phil is talking about. Yet where is 3D today, for all it's awesomeness? VR is a fad, it will go away as soon as it comes. There will be (are) people who are nutso crazy about about, there will be people who will use it all their lives (similarly with me and 3D, it seems), but for the vast majority, it's a fad. A fad's fad. A fad's fad fad.