Could Apple or Nintendo make VR mainstream?

[SvennoJ]

potato_hamster said:

SvennoJ said:

I was simply giving you an example how a lower res screen can look better than a higher res pentile matrix screen when zoomed up close, like in VR. The 1440x2960 resolution is overkill, just as 64GB ram, GPS, 3D touch, fancy camera, 384khz audio, bunch of sensors, 2.3ghz octacore cpu, no wonder it's $900.

You keep assuming that graphical fidelity and resolution are key. It is for hardcore gamers, it's hard to convince them that the downgrades in DC VR make it worthy of being called a game at all. The mainstream however doesn't care as long as it's fun. No, you won't get RE7 on that $200 headset. Doesn't need to.

I'll accept your pessimistic outlook once the reviews come in. Perhaps Eonite is full of shit with their cheap sensors and tablet class processing requirements for inside out tracking. They seemed to have fooled other companies into investing though.

Btw how does Sony struggle when Polybius runs absolutely smooth at native 120fps on the base ps4 on PSVR. It only struggles cause of that high graphical fidelity that core gamers have come to expect.

Man, you really need to keep your argument straight. You're practically arguing with yourself in each post because they contradict each other so much. So now it's about the games? So you think the key to VR becoming mainstream isn't a solid (not state-of-the-art) immersive experience, but rather a fun one. So by that metric, the only thing that VR really needs to be successful is a great game that gets people wanting to buy like Wii Sports did for the Wii. Well why did you provide this list?

"Let me sum up what mainstream VR needs:
- Standalone, untethered, wireless
- Accurate positional tracking
- No external sensors required, inside out tracking
- Low persistance screen
- Low latency
- High framerate, 90fps or 60fps with positional reprojection
- Low price"

As it turns out all you meant to say is

"Let me sum up what mainstream VR needs:
- A killer app
"

If an immersive experience doesn't matter at all, if Samsung if giving away Gear VRs to millions of people, and the Galaxy S8 is "Overkill" as you so put it, then all you really need is existing technology and a "Wii Sports-like" game that people can't get enough of, since "free" is a pretty good price to the millions that already own a Gear VR compatible phone. It's just that easy folks. Here I was foolishly thinking that you need to have a solid, quality VR experience that mimimizes the effects of Virtual Reality Sickness, but as it turns out, people won't care that they have massive headaches or are vomiting all over themselves due to the low pixel dense displays, distortion, limited image processing and poor frame rates if they're having fun. My bad.

As for Eonite getting investment, as if that means something, look at the tens of millions of dollars that are being spent on the Hyperloop that is never, ever going to be put into production because it cannot be made safe for human travel. Or the millions of dollars that were poured into a company that made a waterbottle that collects water out of the air at a claimed rate that is physically impossible, where the production model literally turned out to be a dehumidifier that opertated many times slower than promised. People pour money into terrible ideas with good marketing all of the time. That's why it's far more reasonable to assume the claims are just claims until they're provably true.

P.S. It's not pessimism. It's realism.

Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of and, or are just trying too hard to trap me in a contradiction.
After you have a mainstream acceptable headset, yes ofcourse you need compelling software for it.

You can have great games on a shit / expensive headset and it won't sell.
You can have a great affordabable standalone headset with shit games and it won't sell.
Not that hard to understand.

Yes I realise that investments aren't the best indicator, that unlimited detail voxel rendering company for example has never delivered. However with IBM, Microsoft, Google and Oculus all working on iniside out tracking solutions, I doubt it's just vaporware.

Perhaps it won't happen next year, it will happen though.

As for now I'll admit you are right about it being to expensive for a cheap headset since I mixed up the $200 OR headset details with the Santa cruz prototype. Santa Cruz included several cameras that allowed inside-out tracking, giving it similar capabilities to the Oculus Rift. Inside-out tracking is still a somewhat finicky technology, and Oculus may have decided that pursuing it in the short term is less important than getting a very cheap self-contained headset out the door. So for now it's just the 399 windows mixed reality headsets and Google's worldsense delivering inside out tracking. https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/17/15655102/google-io-vr-standalone-headset-htc-lenovo-daydream