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

[Normchacho]

Nem said:

the-pi-guy said:

TV doesn't not have the same technologies as the headsets.  Certainly doesn't evoke the same feelings.  

 

they are calling it VR, is because we are finally reaching a point where we can trick the brain into thinking that it's reality.  

 

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.