nanarchy said:
We heard the same crap about 3D TV with the vendors and fans of 3D TV spruiking the same crap, the reality is VR (in its current form and current content) is not appealing to the majority beyond a brief gimmick. Unless MS or Nintendo release something significantly different/improved I can't see that changing, the buy in cost vs the benefit just isn't their and doesn't look like it will be their this gen of technology. |
Except MS and Nintendo also did 3D, perhaps that's why it failed :p
Comparing VR to stereoscpic 3D is like comparing gameplay to a cutscene. Stereoscopic 3D doesn't allow any extra interactivity, it's the same limited view window in 3D. It doesn't add anything. It sorta works for movies as that's all there is, a pre-defined viewpoint. Movies don't work very well in VR or not at all, since it's meant to be interactive and you can look the wrong way. Example, Voltron VR Chronicles just out, a VR cartoon. I'm staring into empty space while the characters are talking behind me. It's very uncomfortable to look behind you while sitting on a couch. It looks cute, but doesn't work. (The interactive segments are better)
Anyway my point is, stop comparing VR to 3D. VR is the freedom to look/walk around in a place by use of 3D, positional and rotational headtracking. Sure you can also use it to watch 3D / 360 videos, that's the weakest part, like the cutscenes of games. Without positional tracking it's not VR, it's just a 3D viewer.
As for terrible buy in cost vs benefit, 4K tv/gaming takes the cake there.
MS is already releasing or rather licensing a different/improved range of headsets. I doubt it will be good enough for the mainstream, yet we've only just entered year 2 of modern VR. VR generations will go rather fast, by the time ps5 releases, wireless eye-tracking foveated rendering inside out tracking 8K headsets will be a real possibility. All the components already exist today.
Essay Pro