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

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

Nem said:
Normchacho 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.

You've used it?  

I've read articles that certain gameplay elements had to be removed because they were too realistic.  If that isn't giving the illusion of reality, then I don't know what would.  We certainly need to add smell and taste, but like I said touch is there in some aspect.  

Besides that, visual is what makes up most of the senses.  

It most certainly is adding something that we haven't seen.  

I'm going to take the word of what people who have actually used it and said, over yours.  



Around the Network
LemonSlice said:
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.


3D tv really only provides a minor improvement to a normal experience. You get a increase in depth, but it's not huge and your FOV doesn't change at all. The general response of pretty much everyone I've ever seen try 3D tv is "oh...cool". Simply put, 3D tv just isn't a very impressive experience.

VR on the other hand, is an immensely impressive experience. I'm not saying VR will see huge mainstream success overnight, but it is a good enough experience and a good enough product on it's own to be worthwhile. It also already has a significantley more robust web of support as far as content goes than 3D ever had.

It will take time for VR to catch on, and I think mobile VR will be the type that brings the most people on board, but comparions to 3D tv are very shortsighted.



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.

Nem said:
Normchacho said:



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.


That's a bad analogy. Handball doesn't meet the definition of Football. The HMDs coming later this year and next year fit the definition of VR.

It's not just VR to me, it's VR. It is by definition VR. It would be one thing if you had simply said that it's not what you envision when you think of VR, but you didn't just do that. You insisted that because it didn't fit your personal vision of VR that it wasn't VR at all. Even going as far as saying that the people and companies who are working on VR know that it isn't really VR and that they are knowingly lieing to us. "They are trying to sell a lie and they know it"



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:

 

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.


That's a bad analogy. Handball doesn't meet the definition of Football. The HMDs coming later this year and next year fit the definition of VR.

It's not just VR to me, it's VR. It is by definition VR. It would be one thing if you had simply said that it's not what you envision when you think of VR, but you didn't just do that. You insisted that because it didn't fit your personal vision of VR that it wasn't VR at all. Even going as far as saying that the people and companies who are working on VR know that it isn't really VR and that they are knowingly lieing to us. "They are trying to sell a lie and they know it"


Whatever you want to call it. 20% VR, 40% VR, still isnt VR. Its exactly 20% or 40% VR. If that is good enough for you and you are good with calling it VR like its 100% VR, its your opinion.

the-pi-guy said:
Nem said:


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.

You've used it?  

I've read articles that certain gameplay elements had to be removed because they were too realistic.  If that isn't giving the illusion of reality, then I don't know what would.  We certainly need to add smell and taste, but like I said touch is there in some aspect.  

Besides that, visual is what makes up most of the senses.  

It most certainly is adding something that we haven't seen.  

I'm going to take the word of what people who have actually used it and said, over yours.  

 

I don't know what you mean Pi. Touch certainly isnt there. Unless you consider it the controller. But you aren't feeling anything but the buttons.

As for people overeacting, theres always someone. I imagine it will be even worse when it releases.



Nem said: 

Whatever you want to call it. 20% VR, 40% VR, still isnt VR. Its exactly 20% or 40% VR. If that is good enough for you and you are good with calling it VR like its 100% VR, its your opinion.

No no, you have that backwards. It is by definition 100% VR, you are just allowed to keep thinking it's not. Just be aware that you are making the conscious choice to remain ignorant.



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.

Around the Network
Normchacho said:
 

No no, you have that backwards. It is by definition 100% VR, you are just allowed to keep thinking it's not. Just be aware that you are making the conscious choice to remain ignorant.

The insistance in lowering the level of the conversation is running dangerously close on infringing the forum rules there, if not done already.

If your argument is to say i'm ignorant, you no longer have an argument. If it was 100% VR we would all be jumping in it like crazy and every company would be crazy releasing products for it with full confidance.

This new VR is as much VR as the Virtual Boy. A bit better in resolution and image, but still the same interface. Now, please go enjoy it if its what you want, but stop trying to convince me of what its not. In a few years, when this whole thing flops, remember to think back at this point, and who you thought was ignorant.



Normchacho said:
LemonSlice said:
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.


3D tv really only provides a minor improvement to a normal experience. You get a increase in depth, but it's not huge and your FOV doesn't change at all. The general response of pretty much everyone I've ever seen try 3D tv is "oh...cool". Simply put, 3D tv just isn't a very impressive experience.

VR on the other hand, is an immensely impressive experience. I'm not saying VR will see huge mainstream success overnight, but it is a good enough experience and a good enough product on it's own to be worthwhile. It also already has a significantley more robust web of support as far as content goes than 3D ever had.

It will take time for VR to catch on, and I think mobile VR will be the type that brings the most people on board, but comparions to 3D tv are very shortsighted.

3D doesn't require a lot. Just a pair of glasses. Autostereoscopy like on the 3DS doesn't require anything for the user to wear (even auto adapts on the New 3DS).  It might not be as impressive of an effect, but it enhances the impressiveness of what you see. Makes what is impressive in 2D look even more impressive. And it adapts to pretty much anything. It doesn't require for entire paradigms to be changed to suit it.

VR might get a better initial reaction (though I've seen incredible reactions from people who experienced 3D for the first time, so I don't know what you're talking about), but thinking that people, who grew too bored and too bothered by 3D, will use VR lastingly en masse is silly.



TheObserver said:
walsufnir said:


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.


Which os is more "popular" than Windows?



JRPGfan said:
padib said:
It most likely is the future of single-player gaming.


and online multi-player gameing.

The only thing it isnt suited for is co-op (2 ppl on 1 screen) & many players playing at once games, like Mario Party.

Agreed.