E3 Sony show is coming very soon.
There will also be there demo of the Virtual Reality device.
It should be very interesting.
baloofarsan said:
$48.95 $22.97
Total $72 for camera and two controllers
...and a gun also... $14.95 (Why is the gun cheaper than the controller?) |
The gun is just apiece of plastic, you have to snap in the move controllers to get it to work. So $72 for the camera+controllers. The VR probably isnt going to be less than $100. $200 price point for everything should be okay but not a major success. That is a big investment for something that may not get a ton of support, of course if it has a lot of support that $200 looks more reasonable.
Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.
Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.
-Jim Sterling
Richard_Feynman said:
Would you like a list of technological applications that were discarded due to the exact same reasoning as you've applied here? That's rhetorical because I don't want to discuss this with someone who uses "back in my day" arguments. And my age has nothing to do with it. I've used OR - and looked at the source code that came along with it. I literally just finished a 2 year study of a C++ toolkit used at the most notable research facilities in the world. It is not unreasonable for me to claim that I am in step with technology and computers. This technology is new, exciting and offers incredible possibilities. I know this for a fact - economic success or not. So I have no need to listen to this "old man talk". |
If there was sometime in modern history any new tech would catch on it was in the 1990s. Money was everywhere, jobs were plenty, the stock market had only one direction - upwards. All the tech we take for granted now started their commercial success in the 90s: Cell phones, laptops, PCs, flatscreen TVs, Internet, touch screens MS, Google, GPS etc. The hype for VR was way bigger than now, and I referred to your age because, though you were a boy, you might remember how it was. You and I was old enough to remember the before and after of this revolution. That the VR graphics in hindsight looks blocky and crude did not lessen the hype. Everyone saw what was there and found it to be sufficient to build a business on. All other tech has moved on and developed and have become cheaper and smaller. The VR was dead and burried until Kickstarter came along.
If VR will make it this time is probably not a question of technology but more of sociology and business models. If Google Glass with all the hype and money resources have a hard time beeing accepted I find it hard to think that a VR device will be more hip.
There will be an audience among the geek community but for it to become really big and important and get all the games it deserves it has to attract a bigger audience than that.
The technology is OK - almost nobody questions that - but the question is if it will attract enough of non-techies.
I really like the idea of virtual reality,but that demo sucked. it's obvious they still have alot of work 2 do. It might be a gimmick,but it's a gimmick worth tapping into,in my mind.
baloofarsan said:
If there was sometime in modern history any new tech would catch on it was in the 1990s. Money was everywhere, jobs were plenty, the stock market had only one direction - upwards. All the tech we take for granted now started their commercial success in the 90s: Cell phones, laptops, PCs, flatscreen TVs, Internet, touch screens MS, Google, GPS etc. The hype for VR was way bigger than now, and I referred to your age because, though you were a boy, you might remember how it was. You and I was old enough to remember the before and after of this revolution. That the VR graphics in hindsight looks blocky and crude did not lessen the hype. Everyone saw what was there and found it to be sufficient to build a business on. All other tech has moved on and developed and have become cheaper and smaller. The VR was dead and burried until Kickstarter came along. If VR will make it this time is probably not a question of technology but more of sociology and business models. If Google Glass with all the hype and money resources have a hard time beeing accepted I find it hard to think that a VR device will be more hip. There will be an audience among the geek community but for it to become really big and important and get all the games it deserves it has to attract a bigger audience than that. The technology is OK - almost nobody questions that - but the question is if it will attract enough of non-techies. |
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+argue
You:
"I don't want to have the option of buying VR. No different to how much a useless waste of resources PSMove was. While I'm at it; why would I want to buy a console from a company that has a niche, unsuccesful so-called handheld. I don't want to have the option of streaming my home console to my handheld in my house.
And the PSEye is just a second grade Kinect anyway. And MS just removed Kinect from PSEye so the device is just dead in the water. Its only reason for being resurrected the questional crowd funding sheme. Certainly this crowd of investors/gamers/entertainment-seekers are not of sound mind to support this. And if this device may have some merit, keep it on PC where it belongs. People who buy a console only want to buy games - and an extra controller. Remembrences of the 5th and 6th gen are tainted with the existence of those cumbersome memory cards. Thank goodness that's over.
And to make it worse, all of these devices are diverting valuable resources from the point of existence of the console: games.
Where are the games Sony? It gets even worse when one considers that the technology has already failed. VR had every bit the same potential market adoption rate in the 90's as in 2014/15. Clearly the lack of exclusive AAAs and 1st party IPs are where that money should go. No, take away the VR, Move, Vita, PSEye and that stupid blue light on the DS4. We don't want any of that.
And don't get me started on Indies."
There you go.
| DakonBlackblade said: I hope ppl dont waste time developping for this crap, just keep giving us non gimmicky great games Sony we dont need another one of these "inovative"stupiditys that will divert the focus of Sonys first partys.
Also thatll cost a fortune, 2 move controllers + PS Eye + the Headset its gona be more expensive tham a brand new PS4. |
You:
"I don't want to have the option of buying VR. No different to how much a useless waste of resources PSMove was. While I'm at it; why would I want to buy a console from a company that has a niche, unsuccesful so-called handheld. I don't want to have the option of streaming my home console to my handheld in my house.
And the PSEye is just a second grade Kinect anyway. And MS just removed Kinect from PSEye so the device is just dead in the water. Its only reason for being resurrected the questional crowd funding sheme. Certainly this crowd of investors/gamers/entertainment-seekers are not of sound mind to support this. And if this device may have some merit, keep it on PC where it belongs. People who buy a console only want to buy games - and an extra controller. Remembrences of the 5th and 6th gen are tainted with the existence of those cumbersome memory cards. Thank goodness that's over.
And to make it worse, all of these devices are diverting valuable resources from the point of existence of the console: games.
Where are the games Sony? It gets even worse when one considers that the technology has already failed. VR had every bit the same potential market adoption rate in the 90's as in 2014/15. Clearly the lack of exclusive AAAs and 1st party IPs are where that money should go. No, take away the VR, Move, Vita, PSEye and that stupid blue light on the DS4. We don't want any of that.
And don't get me started on Indies."
Richard_Feynman said:
You: "I don't want to have the option of buying VR. No different to how much a useless waste of resources PSMove was. While I'm at it; why would I want to buy a console from a company that has a niche, unsuccesful so-called handheld. I don't want to have the option of streaming my home console to my handheld in my house. And the PSEye is just a second grade Kinect anyway. And MS just removed Kinect from PSEye so the device is just dead in the water. Its only reason for being resurrected the questional crowd funding sheme. Certainly this crowd of investors/gamers/entertainment-seekers are not of sound mind to support this. And if this device may have some merit, keep it on PC where it belongs. People who buy a console only want to buy games - and an extra controller. Remembrences of the 5th and 6th gen are tainted with the existence of those cumbersome memory cards. Thank goodness that's over. And to make it worse, all of these devices are diverting valuable resources from the point of existence of the console: games. Where are the games Sony? It gets even worse when one considers that the technology has already failed. VR had every bit the same potential market adoption rate in the 90's as in 2014/15. Clearly the lack of exclusive AAAs and 1st party IPs are where that money should go. No, take away the VR, Move, Vita, PSEye and that stupid blue light on the DS4. We don't want any of that. And don't get me started on Indies." |
Are you okay there man ? You made up a bunh of stuf from a coment of me saying this is useless gimmick. Peripherals dont work, never have what makes any of you think it will now ? All it does is waste dev effort into games that like 5% of the console install base even care. And Ms tried to make kinect mandatory and see how ppl reacted to that.
Btw how do indies even have anything to do with this ?
DakonBlackblade said:
Are you okay there man ? You made up a bunh of stuf from a coment of me saying this is useless gimmick. Peripherals dont work, never have what makes any of you think it will now ? All it does is waste dev effort into games that like 5% of the console install base even care. And Ms tried to make kinect mandatory and see how ppl reacted to that.
Btw how do indies even have anything to do with this ? |
Not really ok. I've been working non-stop for a month and a half and have logged ~10 hours sleep the last 3 days. I'm going a little crazy.
See the comment above yours to see the context. I'm extrapolating your point to ultimate, extreme application. This is done to convey the fact that some people are perfectly happy with the amount of resources spent on games and find the technological experiments, peripherals and new experiences as a most valuable addition to the PS environment.
This is contrasted with the opposite case to illustrate how dull this would be compared to what we are given.
In short, people are over-vocalizing their skepticism to the detriment of the fragile environment in which novel, interesting experiences flourish.
Richard_Feynman said:
See the comment above yours to see the context. I'm extrapolating your point to ultimate, extreme application. This is done to convey the fact that some people are perfectly happy with the amount of resources spent on games and find the technological experiments, peripherals and new experiences as a most valuable addition to the PS environment. This is contrasted with the opposite case to illustrate how dull this would be compared to what we are given. In short, people are over-vocalizing their skepticism to the detriment of the fragile environment in which novel, interesting experiences flourish. |
Fair enought.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
