By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft’s HoloLens Looks More Promising Than VR, but May Be Ahead of Its Time

Lafiel on 13 April 2015
aLkaLiNE said:
TimCliveroller said:

Ok, i see it you're against Microsoft. Fine for you. on the other hand, when writing about the concept in place, you're completely wrong. AR is a superset of VR. Theoretically one could block the real-world input of an AR device and get a VR experience while the opposite doesn't stand without actually transforming the VR device into an AR one.


Except no? AR is half assed VR that will I repeat, be limited to your household. If you blocked the "augmented" part of AR then what you would get barely qualifies as a virtual reality experience. I don't think a floating menu and a broom disguised as a shovel really simulate any type of reality honestly.

 

Its actually not even a superset, its a subset. AR=VR(.5)

You don't get the complete virtual experience, you aren't actually experiencing real life, and you're stuck within reach of your console or router. For all that ms promises with ar, it's sounding pretty lame to me. If I'm going to be limited to where the tech works, let it transport me entirely to a different galaxy. 

 

Honestly this is the same exact bullshit we heard with "tHe ClOuDdD". Big fuckin whoop, I'm so impressed by all the progress that has shown (yet it's PlayStation that can now stream entire video games). Before that the kinect was supposed to be a big deal, yet that too was limited and never came close to delivering on its PR speak.

hm.. I'm pretty sure MS announced the HoloLens as a self-contained device, all tech needed is in the goggles itself, so you could carry it around and so on

2 problems with this approach ofcourse are the amount of processing power you can fit into a mobile device like that and the battery life



Around the Network
The Fury on 13 April 2015

Not like I can afford any of this crap... :(



Hmm, pie.

Vasto on 13 April 2015

I think this thread has ran its course.



JRPGfan on 13 April 2015
TimCliveroller said:

If one can do quality AR (hardware / software that really works), then VR is trivial to do from there. VR is just a subset of AR (required by AR). The same cannot be said about VR. I find it funny : this thing can turn into a support your favorite brand fanboy war without looking at the big picture. There are some advantages to AR - the lack of total disconnection from the real world - corresponding to free movement without the fear of stumbling over things and probably less chances of headaches.


Isnt that a downside though? you want to experiance the gameworld and feel like your in it.

I guess if your afraid of falling down while your sitting on your couch with a VR headset on.... then...



JRPGfan on 13 April 2015
Vasto said:
Unlike VR with AR you can do real things in the real world like the guy in the short film video cooking the eggs and the lady in the Hololens video fixing the sink. You can move around and go places and do things. You can use AR in your everyday life. This is why AR is going to be better and succeed. One step closer to Iron Mans Holographic computing!


^ yes lets all start cooking while we re playing our video games.

...

..

.

Or we can just take a break from the game, cook dinner (while not trying to play a game at the same time), and then go back to gameing after.

 

Yes AR can let you enhance your real world experiances...... but it cant submerse you the way VR can.

Its just not as good for gameing as VR is.

 

AR is good, but its for other things than gameing.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 13 April 2015
TheGoldenBoy said:
I'm just glad they're doing something different. I have no idea if it will be more viable than VR, but at least there's some variety.

I am more in favor of this opinion.  I believe both tech can exist together since they both offer something very different in the experience area.  Which one will be the bigger gaming device is probably a long way off.  As always, software will be the key to determine which piece of hardware takes off.



TimCliveroller on 13 April 2015
JRPGfan said:
TimCliveroller said:

If one can do quality AR (hardware / software that really works), then VR is trivial to do from there. VR is just a subset of AR (required by AR). The same cannot be said about VR. I find it funny : this thing can turn into a support your favorite brand fanboy war without looking at the big picture. There are some advantages to AR - the lack of total disconnection from the real world - corresponding to free movement without the fear of stumbling over things and probably less chances of headaches.


Isnt that a downside though? you want to experiance the gameworld and feel like your in it.

I guess if your afraid of falling down while your sitting on your couch with a VR headset on.... then...


As far as I see it, it is just a matter of preference... it is not a black vs white situation. It depends stictly on the context... But from the technological point of view - AR is harder to do right and it should include the option of going full VR. I see so many people blinded by their love for a certain brand ... It really makes me sick when people defy simple logic. 



Ex Graphics Whore.

TimCliveroller on 13 April 2015
aLkaLiNE said:
TimCliveroller said:

Ok, i see it you're against Microsoft. Fine for you. on the other hand, when writing about the concept in place, you're completely wrong. AR is a superset of VR. Theoretically one could block the real-world input of an AR device and get a VR experience while the opposite doesn't stand without actually transforming the VR device into an AR one.


Except no? AR is half assed VR that will I repeat, be limited to your household. If you blocked the "augmented" part of AR then what you would get barely qualifies as a virtual reality experience. I don't think a floating menu and a broom disguised as a shovel really simulate any type of reality honestly.

 

Its actually not even a superset, its a subset. AR=VR(.5)

You don't get the complete virtual experience, you aren't actually experiencing real life, and you're stuck within reach of your console or router. For all that ms promises with ar, it's sounding pretty lame to me. If I'm going to be limited to where the tech works, let it transport me entirely to a different galaxy. 

 

Honestly this is the same exact bullshit we heard with "tHe ClOuDdD". Big fuckin whoop, I'm so impressed by all the progress that has shown (yet it's PlayStation that can now stream entire video games). Before that the kinect was supposed to be a big deal, yet that too was limited and never came close to delivering on its PR speak.

Honest question : How old are you?



Ex Graphics Whore.

Madword on 13 April 2015

AR is just not as interesting in games than VR is. So for me, VR will always be the better option. I don't need a real world which I cannot interact or have to find the perfect place to play the right game... the perfect example was their shooter game in AR.. I cannot run around an environment to play a shooter.



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

TimCliveroller on 13 April 2015
the-pi-guy said:
TimCliveroller said:

 

VR is not neccesarily a subset of VR.  It completely depends on how the AR headset is built.  

If the AR headset is projector based, then VR is impossible on the headset.  Hololens can't do VR.  As you can see, it allows light to get through, which means any display on it has to add light to information already coming in. 

But AR is possible on all VR headsets so long as there is a camera.  

Where as on the other hand, Project Morpheus, Oculus Rift, would require a camera to be able to do AR.  


On the other hand - "black" looks like "black"... and from their "presentation" light seems "blocked".... There is no implied transparency in parts of their presentation trailer. It may be fake, but conceptually I was never wrong. Again - read my opinion - it all depends on the execution. People attack the concept just because it doesn't align with their company of choice. AR done right is way harder to achieve than VR. Read, analyze and then respond - please. VR = visual output. AR = visual input / passthrough / output. If you put cameras on  a VR device - that is in fact an AR one... The technology might differ, but the concept remains similar.



Ex Graphics Whore.