SvennoJ said:
potato_hamster said:
What $200 headset? You mean the rumors that Occulus Rift is going to make a $200 headset? There was rumors Sony was going to announce a PSP3 at E3 as well. I'll believe it when I see it. And considering this unit is supposedly stand alone, I wouldn't hold my breath that it won't quickly give the average person a massive headache due to the poor resoluton and framerate. See that's the thing about cheap VR experiences, they literally make people sick.
If you want to call jamming your cellphone in a box you strap to your head like the Google Daydream as something that will lead to mass adoption, then why are we seeing Samsung literally giving Gear VR away with Galaxy phones instead of charging people for them?
https://www.gottabemobile.com/how-to-claim-free-gear-vr-with-galaxy-s8-pre-order/
Ohh that's right, because the average user doesn't give a shit about that quality of the Gear VR experience enough to pay for it. I know a bunch of people that recieved free Gear VRs, but I don't know anyone that has used it more than once if they even bothered taking it out of the box. There's always at least a few dozen of these new and unopened up on the local classifieds as people try to get money out of these free devices they couldn't even bother trying. These cellphone headsets are not the bare minimum, and if they are, then it's confirmed that VR will never see mass adoption.
|
Poor resolution isn't the source of headaches though. High resolution and good graphics aren't needed for mass adoption either, see Wii Sports. Poor framerate, lag, high persistance cause a crappy experience. Cellphones are indeed not great candidates for VR. Perhaps they'll get better. I have more faith in OR delivering a suitable gen 2 product. It probably won't appeal to me as Wii Sports didn't either, yet with the right software it could become popular. As long as frame rate, lag and low persistance are priorities.
That's why I think Nintendo is the position of creating another Wii like phenomenon with VR. The Switch is capable enough, especially a smaller, lighter VR ready revision that runs at docked speed all the time. Bundled with a simple headset and a clever Mario game with different elements and ways to play, it could be a success.
Cellphone VR is indeed at the bottom. Like a virtual surround sound mode build into a cheap tv. Without positional headtracking you already miss most of what VR has to offer and I'm guessing it's mostly 360 videos that are offered through that? The worst VR has to offer. (It's not vr at all) Actually looking at some reviews, bigger FOV and 3D is basically all you get, plus you need a controller to play the games. I agree, that's not ready for mass adoption and hurts VR more than it helps. Hopefully inside out tracking will be a success, that will lower the entry requirements considerably. Stable positional headtracking is key to a good VR experience.
Anyway, imo high processing power and/or 4K are not required to make VR mainstream. A killer app is, with affordable hardware that delivers a comfortable easy to use experience. Nintendo is in a position to do that. Yet are they willing to take that risk again.
|
Wii Sports doesn't give you headaches when you play it. The quality of the screen and the frame rate actually has a very relevant effect on user experience for VR where this was a complete non-issue with Wii Sports. The Wii/Wii sports was a success because it was cheap, easy to play, and fun for literally the whole family. No chance of headaches, no chance of vertigo. No having to pass around a wearable device to take truns on. I'm not sure why you're suddenly drawing a parallel between the two.
Question: Why do you think a $200 occulus standalone headset will offer a markedly better experience than a $900 cell phone with a $100 case/controller? You can't realistically expect that rumored headset to offer a better pixel density, and higher frame rate than a Samsung Galaxy S8 does, do you? You've already agreed that the Galaxy S8 in a headset isn't good enough. Why would this be better? You don't even know if this headset will offer quality positional headtracking, and you have to agree that at that price, it probably doesn't.
But wait hold up. You just argued that Google Daydream (and thus Gear VR) is the bare minimum of an acceptable VR experience and now it appears like you haven't even used Daydream or Gear VR? How can you make those claims? Now you're changing your tune to say that these devices are hurting VR when not minutes ago you were claiming they were a way that VR could succeed! You claim that high processing power isn't required for VR, and just completely dismissed the most popular low-power VR experience as "not VR at all". Which is it?
The more this conversation goes on, the more it sounds like you think VR will become mainstream because you really want it to, and not because that's actually realistic. Now you're bringing in Nintendo to the conversation with me? The scenarios you imagine for how this apparently can happen have jumped all over the place that it feels that you're just picturing VR solutions that you'd really like to have, not ones that millions of people are actually willing to pay for.
