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.

V-r0cK on 24 September 2015
Nymeria said:
DerNebel said:

Is he serious here? Gaming has been moving away from the whole playing/enjoying games together with other people that are physically in the same place for years now and Xbox has been on the forefront of that movement with Xbox Live.

It really is frutrating how few games care about couch co-op starting about 5-7 years ago.  One thing I applaud Nintendo on is Mario Kart still has great 2 and 4 player racing.

Nintendo is the best at party games that for sure.



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 24 September 2015
V-r0cK said:
Nymeria said:

It really is frutrating how few games care about couch co-op starting about 5-7 years ago.  One thing I applaud Nintendo on is Mario Kart still has great 2 and 4 player racing.

Nintendo is the best at party games that for sure.

Mario Party 2 was the first video game I ever owned.

That's why I am such a horrible reprobrate determine to screw over everyone I meet.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

V-r0cK on 24 September 2015
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
V-r0cK said:

Nintendo is the best at party games that for sure.

Mario Party 2 was the first video game I ever owned.

That's why I am such a horrible reprobrate determine to screw over everyone I meet.

lol Mario Party games are dam fun but definitely tests your friendships xD



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 24 September 2015
the-pi-guy said:
Nem said:

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.

TV doesn't not have the same technologies as the headsets.  Certainly doesn't evoke the same feelings.  

 

they are calling it VR, is because we are finally reaching a point where we can trick the brain into thinking that it's reality.  

 

The reason they are calling it VR is for marketing purposes and recognition. By definition, anything providing artificial stimuli is VR. The only difference between TV and a VRHeadset is the degree of immersion, via proximity and intesity of artificial stimuli. VR works by decreasing external stimuli (noise) while increasing artificial stimuli because its objective is to control perception more directly than something like a tv or radio which only aims to simply output that stimuli.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 24 September 2015
the-pi-guy said:
DirtyP2002 said:

What has this to do with casual / hardcore?

VR as it is now, is like a giant screen in front of you.
AR seems like an evolution or the next step above VR.

But we are still losing the main point: Porn will be great on AR!

I really don't think AR and VR are different enough to really make any of these comments.  

Porn will be exactly the same on both headsets.  

Unless the AR headsets are designed a certain way, it could be made in a way that it is much worse than current VR.  

AR is distinct from VR in that:

1. It reacts to external stimuli, so it needs extra processing.

2. Rather than removing external stimuli, it depends on it to work, and so allows it to persist.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 24 September 2015
the-pi-guy said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

AR is distinct from VR in that:

1. It reacts to external stimuli, so it needs extra processing.

2. Rather than removing external stimuli, it depends on it to work, and so allows it to persist.

Yes, I am completely aware.  

Unless you think porn in your living room is completely different from porn in someone else's (the virtual) living room?

Thank you for agreeing with me.  

Yeah, I was just simplifying it.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

walsufnir on 24 September 2015
Imaginedvl said:
Maybe not the future... But VR or AR will play a huge role in it for sure.
I'm really excited about AR (at least the way MS is envisioning it with HoloLens). I'm less attracted by VR for now but I have to admit that being able to be fully immersed in a SP campaign for games like Halo would be cool to, but again just as an option.


Seriously, in the end I would rather take a holo tech than VR. And that is not because people think I'm an "MS guy" but I loved the idea of the Holo Deck in Star Trek since I ever saw it. Yes, Holo lens is nothing compared to Holo Deck but I am talking about the idea behind it.

I can't repeat it more often: People should watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon_%282001_film%29



RPGFan1 on 24 September 2015

I've been reading this thread and I'm with Nem. This isn't VR. Real VR would be like The Matrix where you have full control over your actions, not just moving your head back and forth while using a controller.

That being said, Phil Spencer brushing off one gimmick while praising another is obvious.



Soundwave on 24 September 2015

A mask over your face = Virtual Reality has been the accepted definition for like three decades. I remember seeing the same VR concepts like in 1992-94:

This concept has been part of pop culture, in movies, sci-fi novels, and tried by various different companies for years.

It's called the HOLODECK in Star Trek, not the Virtual Reality Deck, because that's a completely different concept. 

That's like saying Nintendo is falsely advertising the 3DS because the images aren't literally coming out of the screen in three dimensions. 



JRPGfan on 24 September 2015
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.

^ just want to point out that this is plainly wrong.

 

There is sensory experiance/stimuli in it.

You "see" a virtual world when you put on the helmet, thats a visual stimulus. Turning your head inside this virtual world, works the same as in the real world.

You "hear" a virtual world, according to where you are in it, where you turn your head ect, the same as in the real world.

 

Sight and sound do count as sensory experiances.