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

[Nem]

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.