SvennoJ said:
potato_hamster said:
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
|
So what don't we have now? We have hundreds of VR games. We have headsets ranging from free to $1000 with all kinds of differing levels of quality. Occulus Rift is apparently coming out with their own standalone headset that is only going to cost $80- $100 more than the cases used for cell phone VR. You think this might be that affordable standalone device that breaks through. I'm telling you that clearly is not feasible for a variety of reasons.
I have no doubt that there are all kinds of companies working on inside out tracking solutions and they have been for decades. They've had tracking solutions similar to whats being proposed for decades for use in robotics. I actually developed my own stereoscopic object tracking solution in university for a project. The concept is not the problem. It's not vaporware and never has been. It's clearly well beyond the proof of concept. The problem is the implementation of such solutions. They've very expensive, both physically, and system resource-wise. When you introduce learning into such solutions to improve your accuracy and limit calibration, it becomes that much more resource intensive. So these companies have been investing in how to come up with much more economical solutions that are "good enough" for VR. That's not an easy nut to crack, and I'm not convinced that they've solved that issue in such a way whatever that solution is, it'll be as good as say motion tracking in PS VR (which isn't great) in a $200 system.
Your verge article states the inside-out tracking headsets you're pushing like likely going to be just as expensive as the HTC Vive. That just means they've swapped one motion tracking soluton for another one (that's likely better), but is also equally expensive. Inside-out tracking hasn't shaved hundreds of dollars off of the price, and it probably won't in the future. And again, this points to this OR $200 VR standalone headset not being a very compelling VR experience.
