...when VR doesn't go away? Pretend they were for it all along?
Of coursh!
I expect this fad to be over not too long from now (maybe four to eight years) when the average hardcore gamer realizes this shit is just a gimmick that doesn't improve actual gaming aside from a few gimmicky examples, just like the Wii.
If I'm proved wrong, I'll be proved wrong and admit as much, although hopefully, if that happens, they will be able to convert me into VR, rather than me being an outlier in an industry that turned completely cancerous for the sake of a useless gimmick. That's my biggest fear.
i've always been excited for vr.
but no matter how good it gets in the future, tomorrow or years from now, you won't get me to say it was worth shit in 2016.
>>334407886
HDTV also doesn't improve actual gaming, but all modern games are now in HD.
>>334408189
HDTV is a straight improvement. V.R. isn't. It comes with its very limiting constraints.
Are we in a future where we all wave wiimotes about? No, we aren't.
>>334406034
It might not, It's still gonna be shit. The Wii didn't go away, but that doesn't mean it wasn't 95% shovelware. Cell phones didn't go away, also mostly shovelware.
>>334406034
I think jumping into it this early is foolish. In my opinion this is the "pong console" stage of VR. That is to say, it isn't going anywhere, but right now everybody is making a kind of VR and we have no idea what is going to stick.
So basically, its finally here in a very rudimentary form (which is better than we've ever had it), but it isn't really ready yet. I don't know. If you've got the money to jump on it, buy all means go for it, its your money and you might really enjoy it, good for you. Me, I'm gonna hang around and see what sticks here.
>>334409331
They are both improvements.
>It comes with its very limiting constraints.
Like what? It's a temporary step back in resolution but it's 3D (actual good 3D where each eye has its own dedicated display, so none of the ghosting or other shitty effects that happen with shutterglasses based 3D) it has super precise, smooth head tracking so the game world surrounds you and in all other ways is a huge improvement over gaming on a flat panel.
>>334409971
Stable 90 frames per second are required so that alone is a huge step backwards compared to any other game that does not need to be constrained by that limit. There's also limited constraints on how your game moves so that half the population doesn't get nauseated while trying to play it. With Vive you have the gigantic cable that is a pain in the ass to deal with.
A far cry from HD Television. This is more akin to 3D Televisions. Hell, it's even worse because movies and tv shows don't have to be designed specifically for a 3D television. They can just be normal games and add 3D support. The same is not true with VR and will most likely never be.
>>334408189
Yeah except HD TVs were just the natural continuation of LCD panel manufacturing. This requires specific content made for it that nobody serious is investing in, so all that's made is shallow and gimmicky crap that nobody will buy this incredibly expensive thing for. Oh, right, I wasn't describing the oculus rift there, I was describing the 3DTV.
>>334407886
>people still don't understand how fucking awesome vr is when used in the right genres.
see any game in a cockpit.
literally the only reason i'll be getting one. i've never seen anyone who said it made for a worse experience in games like these. nothing but praise
>b-b-but those games are bad
fine. vr gaming is not for you then.
still waiting for a decent mech game to really make me buy one.
>>334410570
Content also has to be in HD to take advantage of HD displays.
>This requires specific content made for it that nobody serious is investing in
Valve isn't serious?
>so all that's made is shallow and gimmicky crap that nobody will buy this incredibly expensive thing for
Have you tried any VR games at all?
>Stable 90 frames per second are required so that alone is a huge step backwards compared to any other game that does not need to be constrained by that limit.
Another way to look at it is that it's driving PC upgrades, the same way polygonal graphics did in the 90s.
>There's also limited constraints on how your game moves so that half the population doesn't get nauseated while trying to play it. With Vive you have the gigantic cable that is a pain in the ass to deal with.
Gear VR has no cable and several other headsets that are wholly self contained are on the way. The movement thing is untrue, a misconception as my own experience has been that if you spend enough time in VR, your body adapts and you no longer get sick.
It's going to go the way of the joystick or racing wheel. Expensive peripherals for a niche market.
>>334408189
Because HDTV wasn't made to improve gaming but to improve watching TV you fuckwitt.
>>334411187
i don't care about the argument but his point stands. game makers target 1080 for a reason. i disagree that hd doesn't make games better but that's besides the point. also vr isn't exactly limited to games but it's definitely marketed as such.
>>334410890
>tfw gonna convert my walk in closet to a cockpit once quality vr headsets are cheap enough
>>334410928
>Another way to look at it is that it's driving PC upgrades, the same way polygonal graphics did in the 90s.
That's a nice way to look at it, except it's completely wrong.
When technology improves, it's true that V.R. games improve, but so do non V.R. ones, who will be ahead of V.R. by default, because they don't need to constrain themselves to 90 frames per second, nor do they need to constrain themselves to V.R. controls
>The movement thing is untrue, a misconception as my own experience has been that if you spend enough time in VR, your body adapts and you no longer get sick.
That's nice, champ, but you're in the minority. This shit has been properly tested by everyone trying to do V.R. hardware and software and, like it or not, there are limits to how games can control and play so that the majority of people don't get sick while playing them. Now, yes, YOU might be immune at this point via combination of experience in V.R. and your natural balance, but unfortunately for you, this industry isn't catered exclusively to your sensibilities, which means games that try to go off the normal safe V.R. controls will always be niche and have a large part of the population unable to play them without feeling sick.
It honestly is pretty ridiculous that you think this is equal to HDTV and a sure-fire hit. It's totally possible that this becomes the future, but if you're not seeing the dozens of hardships that this concept has vs HD, then you're a fool.
>>334412023
>who will be ahead of V.R. by default, because they don't need to constrain themselves to 90 frames per second, nor do they need to constrain themselves to V.R. controls
They will be inferior to VR games by virtue of not being in VR. Simply being in VR makes games more fun. I have both a CV1 and a Gear VR and play VR games pretty much exclusively now.
>That's nice, champ, but you're in the minority.
Show me data.
>It honestly is pretty ridiculous that you think this is equal to HDTV and a sure-fire hit. It's totally possible that this becomes the future, but if you're not seeing the dozens of hardships that this concept has vs HD, then you're a fool.
The future will vindicate me. People like you will be laughed at for their lack of foresight.
>>334411917
>mfw i'm actually planning on building an ac driven 6dof stewart platform, around $6000
>plus a full fanatec set of gear
it's not about being cheap enough i'm just trying to talk myself out of spending 10k on video games.
>>334412257
>They will be inferior to VR games by virtue of not being in VR. Simply being in VR makes games more fun. I have both a CV1 and a Gear VR and play VR games pretty much exclusively now.
To you, maybe. But how can you know the amount of people that will prefer the best looking and controlling games VS the amount of people that will prefer the not as good looking or controlling games that happen to have V.R. to them.
>Show me data.
Go fucking watch speeches by Lucky Palmer or Carmack and game developers on V.R., they literally all agree that you are limited in how to control the view of a game compared to a non V.R. game. You're a fucking moron ignoring the views laid by the people that are behind and/or completely familiar with the technology because in your experience, you happen to be one of the people that doesn't get nauseated with.
>The future will vindicate me. People like you will be laughed at for their lack of foresight.
The future will vindicate me. People like you will be laughed at for their lack of foresight.
Or maybe not. We'll see. Not surprising a moron like you is so sure of himself, though.
Does anyone have the new "PlayStation VR" ? Should i get it? Do only special games work with it, or can I use it as a display for normal games too?
>>334413785
Yeah ps4 VR(TM) is the best headset of 2016! Play games with your friends or even alone! Be sure to pick up the Playstation(TM) 4 while you're out!
>>334409675
>I think jumping into it this early is foolish. In my opinion this is the "pong console" stage of VR
its hilarious how people act like this is some amazing new technology like the invention of computers
its not even 'virtual reality'
it's some screens you strap to your face to experience exactly the same 3d worlds as before in a slightly more inconvienent way
>>334413785
>Does anyone have the new "PlayStation VR" ?
Nobody has it.
>Should i get it?
I dunno.
>Do only special games work with it, or can I use it as a display for normal games too?
You can play regular games on a virtual screen, but only certain games will have actual VR features or be designed from the ground up for VR.
