It's been exactly a year since this was posted.
Was this anon right? Is VR Gaming already ruined?
>>341132707
No. Most people still don't even have the headsets yet.
>>341132707
Not yet, but probably in another 2 years. This VR BS can not last.
>>341132707
Vr am already failed with virtual boy. This isn't even true vr
>Enjoy playing with the Vive
>some poorfags on /v/ think it's bad because they never got a chance to try it and got spooked because of the price tag
Yeah it totally failed.
No. Oculus is trying their hardest to fuck it up for everyone, but the VR machine is too big to fail now, every tech company has money in it.
>>341132707
Hard to say right now
For the most part right now the headsets are just for people really hyped and into it
The real main launch for the average consumer will probably be in the next few years
>>341133480
Nothing is too big to fail.
>>341132707
Did you really waited an entire year just to make this post?
>>341133656
Yes VR has shit graphics
It would be way to demanding otherwise
>>341133480
Yeah, like how those 3D TVs didn't fail after every major company invested in them...
>>341133769
No, he just edited a screenshot he made earlier. Lower the post count by like 50million and edit the year back one.
>>341134008
why?
>>341132707
VR headsets are too expensive and require exponentially more power to be on par with current gen graphics which is not currently possible.
I, like many people, am waiting for them to develop more before buying into it, and that itself is slowing the growth process.
There's not even enough porn or waifu sims yet which is my main reason for buying one.
>>341133480
yeah like smartwatches and google glasses and wearables and 3D TV and...
most people just don't see any value added in VR
>>341132707
It's like the Wii fad in slo-motion, except EVERYONE wants a piece of the pie.
>>341132707
There's just no way for it to fail. It can stay afloat with horror games alone.
>>341134309
Because VR headsets already demand really high resolution gameplay with an absolute minimum of 90 FPS, and without any inconsistencies in framerate.
>>341134309
In order for them to be playable you need a great frame rate (higher then 60 from my experience)
The resolution also has to be high
And ontop of that the game has to be rendered twice (not just in the duel monitor way as VR runs 2 slightly different displays to make a 3d effect
the answer is that it'll take time. today VR isn't viable, half because of the cost, half because of limitations in the technology. give it five, ten years, and all of those negatives become moot.
vr will take off, we are just seeing its infancy.
>>341132707
>this anon
you mean (you)?
>>341134767
>>341135062
didn't crysis come out 8 years ago?
Porn will make VR.
It is already getting there.
This is the baby steps generation of VR.
It is like saying humans are in the space age.
We are hardly even baby steps in terms of space age, despite all the amazing things we have done.
Give it time.
First generations of any hardware are ALWAYS shit.
someone give me a prediction to post in a years time
>>341135409
What does that have to do with anything?
Yea it had good graphics
Its still far less demanding then a decent looking VR game
>>341136154
>what does a game that came out a decade ago and looks better than a current gen game have to do with anything
gee I dunno
>all these people responding to my bait post from a year ago
Thanks for the retrospective (You)'s.
>being autistic enough to screencap your own irrelevant post and bring it up a year later
jesus christ is this what anime does to people? get some fucking social skills you stupid faggots
>>341136768
Actually that one is mine. It was pretty obvious back then.
VR was never not a joke.
>>341137324
To be fair, I made that particular post. It was pretty much a given
>>341137721
In actuality the post can be attributed to me, I am responsible and foresaw what was to come.
>>341133480
>but the VR machine is too big to fail now
Isn't VR bad for your eyes or something like that?
>>341138317
The reality of it is that yours truly authored the aforementioned statement, and as such being the case all future credit may be attributed to my estate. There was no alternative outcome than what came to pass
>>341138883
Looking at your screen in a pitch black room is, so I would assume it's even worse than that.
>>341139061
Though rumors abound that the quotation in question was bespoke by another, it was in fact first conceived by myself and left here for others to muse upon. I was and remain prophetic in my conclusions.
>>341133026
>No. Most people still don't even have the headsets yet.
That's no longer true for the Vive. All orders ship in 72 hours. You're about a week behind in being still able to use that excuse
No, its barely even available to buy. It was a clumsy launch, but that's it so far.
>>341133704
There is nothing in it for the average consumer. What do you do with this tech? Room scale is nice but when people compare room scale experiences to Wii and Kinect they are not at all wrong. Holoball is cool but it's 3D pong and still very Wii-like.
Some are saying the tech isn't here cause of screen door effect, blurriness moving eyes up or down, cord coming out of the headset (not an issue for seated experences), headset weight, room scale limits, etc. But what when all of these things are addressed (which they will be in less than five years)? The tech will be there and then what?
How is it not 3D gimmicky niche stuff? Porn? Niche for degenerate nerds. Not a viable market for adult content makers. Virtual tourism? Can't beat the real things. Medical and sims? They already employ related tech. Attractions is and will continue to be a common use. But what then? People said Wii and Kinect had potential too but they didn't. Neogaf enthusiasts say VR is the future of gaming. There is no way. A neat novelty for the first five mins. Then your mind adjusts to it being fake and everything is boring.
>>341135626
it isn't the first generation
though space is a decent analogy. there are parallels that can be drawn between the current HMD fad and SpaceX
>>341140184
>That's no longer true for the Vive
I'm not talking about the Vive.
>>341136768
>>341137324
It was actually me.
>>341142954
why not? the Vive is one of two major VR HMDs on the market being discussed, and you're going to pretend the OP mentions Oculus specifically?
>>341144156
Because it's the lesser of the two, and it's share of the market, and relevence, is a fraction of Oculus.
