By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nem on 25 September 2015
Edit Thread
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.