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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer hopes VR isn't the future of gaming.

VR will not replace traditional gaming it will.create a new branch of gaming as an addition to what we have now.



Around the Network

It's such a shame, he started off so well but is consistently getting more and more cringeworthy as time goes on.
He really needs to stick with focusing on xbox and not downplaying or attacking the competition.



Nem said:
Zekkyou said:
Nem said:

A gyro screen?

Its not VR. VR is what you see in the holodeck of startreck. A virtual reality you can interact with. Not a little screen to peek into another world.

"Virtual Reality (VR), which can be referred to as immersive multimedia or computer-simulated life, replicates an environment that simulates physical presence in places in the real world or imagined worlds and lets the user interact in that world. Virtual reality artificially creates sensory experiences, which can include sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste."

I'm not downplaying anything. They are trying to sell a lie and they know it. They are just that desperate to sell it and get the return from the investment. This will be as big as the Move/kinect if not less.

It seems a little silly to use wiki's definition of VR to discredit stuff like Morpheus and Oculus when that same article acknowledges HMDs as a type of VR. You can argue it's not 'true' VR, but the concept itself has quite a lot of wiggle room.

Regardless to the definitions from places like wiki and Oxford though, i personally think the biggest validator of these devices being considered a type of VR is that such devices have been referred to as such in science fiction for decades. That's not selling a lie, that's selling a well established idea.


The definitions are all similar. Who cares where its from. What matters is what they say. Wiki was just the easiest to copy paste.

Tell me, if this is VR, why isnt the game on your TV VR? The only difference is the proximity of the screen.

In VR you do not see a screen its a totally.different experience.

 



Also, it would seem that a lot of people in here "agreeing with phil" have never tried a vr headset in thier lives.



The whole "its no different from a big display in front of you" argument is ignorance on a whole new level, or at the very least denial.
Since some of you seem to be really struggling with understanding the difference, here.

A fixed display is 2D, both eyes see the same image.

A 3D display is 3D, both eyes see a separate image with a fraction of delay as the display itself alternates between left eye and right eye, but the screen is a fixed point in space with a fixed size, the only user input is the controller, has limited manual focal control because of the fixed nature, thus often feels like paralax layering rather than true 3D.

A HMD places a different image in front of each eye at the SAME TIME, because of the proximity from the eye (at the natural minimum focal length) you are given a full focal range so the 3D gives you full range depth and the ability to *focus* on elements as you do in real life, this is combined with sensors both head mounted and external to track both your heads movement and the point in space where your head is, to control your view in terms of looking around the virtual world and adjusting your point in space relative to the location of your head, which greatly increases the immersion and provides a direct link between the full range focal depth and the players natural movement.

So seriously, when you say "it's no different from a big screen, its just right next to your eyes" what you are essentially saying is "I don't have a clue what I am talking about".



Around the Network
BraLoD said:
PwerlvlAmy said:
i dont think its the future either. i think it will be a short lived fad in gaming much like motion control and and 3d gaming was


By 3D gaming you are referring to gaming with 3D screens effects, right?


yup the 3D TV's and the 3D screens they were pushing on us by sony and nintendo, short lived fads. Just like motion gaming. I feel VR is the same thing



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Nem said:
Soundwave said:

Uh, pretty sure the popularly known definition of VR is basically a helmet you put over your head that transposes you into a different reality. That's a concept that's been around and hyped since the 1980s at least. 

I don't think anyone's dumb enough to be expecting the holodeck from Star Trek. 

The Playstation VR/Occulus Rift/etc. are basically the realization of ideas that even Sega and Nintendo were promising from the early 1990s. 


Whatever you want to call it.

There is no sensory experience in it, so i dont see it as anymore VR than a game in your TV. Just cause the screen is in my face it doesnt magically become someting else (this is more in response to other posters).

And yes, i dont think we are even close yet to real VR technology, and yes, Sega and Nintendo were already trying to dupe us back then.

What? Do you even know how VR works? You've obviously never used it...is absolutely a sensory experience. Though...I can't think of anything that isn't a sensory experience.

Modern VR is way more than just being really close to the screen though. It is so far beyond playing a game on your tv. Even a rudimentary setup like Google Carboard does a pretty good job of tricking the brain into thinking it's somewhere it's not.

It's really impossible to accuratley explain, you just need to try it for yourself.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Yeah i want vr to flop.



Tamron said:
Also, it would seem that a lot of people in here "agreeing with phil" have never tried a vr headset in thier lives.

Agreed.

Im always against gimmicks, but with this kind of device i will reserve my opinion until i try Playstation VR on first hand, OR what is going to be the most likely situation, when enough people try it and they voice their opinions on the internet.

As of right now, i havent seen ONE bad preview of the device. Everyone has something good to say about it, they are just waiting for more source material to be created to see if its worth the buy.

From what ive seen, Sony is working hard to create the needed killer app to this thing, which IMO it doesnt have to be a AAA game. 

Just look at the Wii. The madness begun with a simple game called Wii Sports.

Maybe two different scenarios because one is a console and the other is a peripheral, but you see my point.



kitler53 said:

oh man,. i'm in just such agreement.  VR is nothign more than a giant screen in front of you.  AR, on the other hand, can do really innovative things like making the whole wall your screen.

I know you're being sarcastic but that is actually the reason it's not a good idea to showcase VR games on the big screen at your conferences. I honestly think some people believe this is exactly what it is.

edit: Yep.

Dear God.



 

The PS5 Exists.