SvennoJ said:
potato_hamster said:
Seems kinda strange that the Galaxy S8 screen is overkill, considering it apparently offers a sub-par VR experience. That doesn't add up, does it? Ohh right. It needs the VR version of Wii Sports, and then Gear VR will sell like gangbusters. It's just that easy.
And now you're going to argue that because you had a PC in the 90's that ran non-VR games at 90Hz V-synched that means that it should be arbitrary to offer a compelling VR experience in 2018 for $200 in a device 1/100th the size of your PC, at 1/10th of the price on a screen that is 3-4 times higher pixel density with graphical fidelity that games have come to expect over the last two decades? When Sony struggles to do the same on much bigger hardware, that costs well over $500... right. Your argument is completely non-sensical. Occulus Rift doesn't employ magicians and miracle workers. These are legitimate engineering problems that can't be solved with hopes and dreams.
I believe it's totally possible Occulus Rift is releasing a $200 standalone VR headset next year. I just know in advance it's probably going to be total shit and millions of people are not going to care enough to buy them. I don't care what technology is in it. It's not going to be able to offer nearly as compelling of an experience as PSVR at less than half the price, at less than a quarter of the size, with its own battery source. It's going to be much more like a worse version of a cell phone VR experience, which you've already agreed is total shit. If this apparently revolutionary VR technology is in a $200 standalone device, then you know it's probably over-hyped nonsense to describe what is likely going to amount to a simple sensor that are tedious to calibrate and lose calibration rather easily.
The technology behind legitimate inside-out tracking is actually pretty expensive, and more importantly very resource instensive, both of which fly in the face of the idea of an inexpensive, standalone headset. You're going to have to come to terms with that and accept it.
|
I was simply giving you an example how a lower res screen can look better than a higher res pentile matrix screen when zoomed up close, like in VR. The 1440x2960 resolution is overkill, just as 64GB ram, GPS, 3D touch, fancy camera, 384khz audio, bunch of sensors, 2.3ghz octacore cpu, no wonder it's $900.
You keep assuming that graphical fidelity and resolution are key. It is for hardcore gamers, it's hard to convince them that the downgrades in DC VR make it worthy of being called a game at all. The mainstream however doesn't care as long as it's fun. No, you won't get RE7 on that $200 headset. Doesn't need to.
I'll accept your pessimistic outlook once the reviews come in. Perhaps Eonite is full of shit with their cheap sensors and tablet class processing requirements for inside out tracking. They seemed to have fooled other companies into investing though.
Btw how does Sony struggle when Polybius runs absolutely smooth at native 120fps on the base ps4 on PSVR. It only struggles cause of that high graphical fidelity that core gamers have come to expect.
|
Man, you really need to keep your argument straight. You're practically arguing with yourself in each post because they contradict each other so much. So now it's about the games? So you think the key to VR becoming mainstream isn't a solid (not state-of-the-art) immersive experience, but rather a fun one. So by that metric, the only thing that VR really needs to be successful is a great game that gets people wanting to buy like Wii Sports did for the Wii. Well why did you provide this list?
"Let me sum up what mainstream VR needs:
- Standalone, untethered, wireless
- Accurate positional tracking
- No external sensors required, inside out tracking
- Low persistance screen
- Low latency
- High framerate, 90fps or 60fps with positional reprojection
- Low price"
As it turns out all you meant to say is
"Let me sum up what mainstream VR needs:
- A killer app
"
If an immersive experience doesn't matter at all, if Samsung if giving away Gear VRs to millions of people, and the Galaxy S8 is "Overkill" as you so put it, then all you really need is existing technology and a "Wii Sports-like" game that people can't get enough of, since "free" is a pretty good price to the millions that already own a Gear VR compatible phone. It's just that easy folks. Here I was foolishly thinking that you need to have a solid, quality VR experience that mimimizes the effects of Virtual Reality Sickness, but as it turns out, people won't care that they have massive headaches or are vomiting all over themselves due to the low pixel dense displays, distortion, limited image processing and poor frame rates if they're having fun. My bad.
As for Eonite getting investment, as if that means something, look at the tens of millions of dollars that are being spent on the Hyperloop that is never, ever going to be put into production because it cannot be made safe for human travel. Or the millions of dollars that were poured into a company that made a waterbottle that collects water out of the air at a claimed rate that is physically impossible, where the production model literally turned out to be a dehumidifier that opertated many times slower than promised. People pour money into terrible ideas with good marketing all of the time. That's why it's far more reasonable to assume the claims are just claims until they're provably true.
P.S. It's not pessimism. It's realism.
