The future of VR
The negative and doubtful responses to this industry is a combination of "vidya culture", which promotes negativity of every new tech, because it's cool, and the fact that kids are too poor to afford current gen VR so they claim to hate the technology.
Truth is, 10-15 years from now the tech will
>include high-tech scanning equipment, 360 camera and room scaling capable of rendering perfect body and face modelling of the player and tracking fine motor movements.
>graphics, thanks to incredible advances like Nvidea's face innovations will allow real-time rendering of your facial expressions in a multiplayer environment
>scanning technology can be applied to props, guns, swords etc will be tracked in real time flawlessly
>Advances in headset technology including FOV, dual 4k screens and flawless motion tracking will allow VR experiences which are indistinguishable from reality.
The people hating on VR are just fat neckbeards who are afraid of change and are happy to spend the rest of their lives couch gaming on a TV and watching anime.
Just watch, this gen of VR is what the N64 was to gaming. Look at the big forward-thinkers of our time. Musk says that to assume any rate of technological advancement at all, the possibility of our entire universe not being a simulation is 1 billion to one.
Let's face it, gaming is a form of entertainment that focuses on escapism, identity projection and alternate reality simulation. VR is the next step forward in satisfying the underlying consumer desires of gamers.
Thoughts?
I didn't read any of that, but I assume you want an Overwatch thread?
A lewd Overwatch thread...
>>342722273
hit the nail on the head with the VR-negativity thing. I think there'll still be a market for old-school monitor based gaming because the generation that developed the scene grew up with that.
True though, eventually, games as we know it will be replaced with something alot more immersive
>>342722651
>alot
I thought the tech was just a gimmick but after trying the shit quality gear VR at the Samsung store I actually got surprised. Definitely going grow.
By the way pal, the weaboos on here are all too poor to invest in the tech, so the only response you'll get to VR-related threads is shitposting
>>342722273
The people hating on VR are mostly hating on it because right now, it is utter horseshit for most games.
It has some niche potential in its current state, and can work well for a small selection of games, but the limited controls and inability to walk/run meaningful distances limits it greatly.
What the future MAY bring is irrelevant. The current VR options are extremely limited for most games, and that's why it will fail.
Current VR has one problem they could solve easily, but don't (controls. Gloves with force feedback), and one they can't YET (locomotion), but I'm sure some nifty tech or workaround will come within ten years.
10-15 years from now isn't now, so what does it matter?
>>342723098
I think with the level of technology right now, they should scrap the shitty controls and like you said, run with fine motor gloves - or utilize the primarily visual level of immersion in games to practically replace the head-movement (mouse/right thumbstick) and stick with game controllers.
Alot of people speculating the ultimate failure of the technology based on first-round results don't understand business. This industry like any other operates on a level of hyper-competition. The big players now are BIG corps investing relateively little to gain first-mover advantage opportunities.
But really, if they fail, the technology will continue to be perfected by thousands of other firms. Innovations that need improvements don't die, only innovations that have become redundant. Innovations like VR will be heavily invested in, and it might take two or three generations of big-change tech gens to actually see a product that will totally change the industry.
>>342723291
Because this is a video game board, and we're speculating the future of our hobby. Are you really so arrogant and narrow-minded that you believe anything worth discussing has to fit into the present time frame?
>>342723703
He's just finding an excuse to try and shut down VR topics because he's like mentioned, a fat neckbeard afraid of change.
>>342722701
please forgive me senpai <3
>>342723703
It's more like you're suggesting that the present time frame doesn't matter.
There just aren't any games for VR right now
What's the matter gamers?
Don't want to spend $800 to play phone games?
fucking poorfags, you don't deserve zuckerberg
just like 3d, right? vr is a fucking meme and a fad
>>342722273
Im with you VR will be like N64... shitty overated stuff that killed tons of good franchises that were better in everyway in 2d
>>342722273
None of that will happen for two big reasons.
A. Normalfags (who make up the vast majority of the market) will never buy into thousands of dollars worth of VR equipment
B. We are about to hit the wall of Moore's Law.
As long as virtual reality requires you to physically move around, it will not work properly. Most people don't have necessary space to make use of that.
Virtual reality has to reach levels of what you see in fiction for most people to give it time of the day.
>>342722273
VR is going to be as big as the jump to polygonal graphics, but right now we might as well be messing with wireframes and shaded polygons. There's still a lot that needs to be sorted out before we can really say it's 'here'. I have a Vive and it's certainly a glimpse at the future of vidya, but it's just that, a glimpse.
>>342723921
Either this is bait, or you are too autistic to follow conversation.
I'm discussing the future, the present obviously has a big role in shaping that. My argument is that a generally popular reaction to the technology by this community is that it's going to fail, and that those people aren't considering the future.
>tech isn't perfect right now
>tech is irrelevant
I'm not trying to promote the technology, and I'm especially not saying go out and invest $1000 on this gen's techology. Just because it's not great right now doesn't mean that it's going to die. People that believe otherwise have no idea how businesses operate.
>>342722273
but anon i fell for the meme
nogaems
Lack of feedback kills VR's motion controls for me. Once there's some advancement in that area, I'll be interested.
Lol VR will only be good if they can fix EMF problems.
>>342723976
The industry needs a big launch game to really kick it off. Something timeless and something that will be remembered. The game needs to work perfectly with the technology and be accessible. Think of games like Mario that kicked off the n64. Right now that games doesn't exist for VR and until then it'll continue to be shite
>>342722273
That's a big and shiny shitpost, but it's still a shitpost.
>>342724254
>1970s
stop staring at that idiot box it'll make you go blind!
>2020
Don't use those bloody things they're not healthy
Do you not see that we are the generation that will be looked at like we look at our grandparents trying to operate a smartphone
>>342724398
>I'm discussing the future
No you're not, you're asking why people hate it right now. People hate it because right now it doesn't work. What's worse is that right now it's being treated like the next great innovation, which means 10-15 years from now might end up being 25-30 years from now.
>>342724774
Yeah but TVs don't give you cuck stamps all over your face
>>342722273
>>include high-tech scanning equipment, 360 camera and room scaling capable of rendering perfect body and face modelling of the player and tracking fine motor movements.
What for? Only aiming for fps and the likes just needs good, sensitive and calibrated controllers. Ducking and jumping is still better bound onto buttons.
>>graphics, thanks to incredible advances like Nvidea's face innovations will allow real-time rendering of your facial expressions in a multiplayer environment
We won't see huge graphical leaps BECAUSE of vr because it eats performance which is needed for graphical fidelity etc.. Furthermore it's fucking stupid and irrelevant to mimic your expression in a game, what for?
>scanning technology can be applied to props, guns, swords etc will be tracked in real time flawlessly
Again, good controllers are all that is needed for this. Has nothing to do with VR explicitly.
>Advances in headset technology including FOV, dual 4k screens and flawless motion tracking will allow VR experiences which are indistinguishable from reality.
Ok, it would be possible even today but the prices would skyrocket and to be indistinguishable from reality you need insane graphics in the games itself which is nearly impossible and will stay like this for quite a while, even 30 years are not enough as the leaps are small and far inbetween.
Sorry OP but you are retarded if you think this is what VR is for and how VR is going to develop. Don't make any posts about your "no source" and stupidity.
>>342724806
>I have no idea how OLED screens work
This isn't fucking cathode rays you retard
The only thing i would want from a VR headset is just a screen in front of my eyes, no special controller or head/movement tracking or room scanning or anything.
>>342722273
i'm interested in VR, but it's going to be niche.
there are a lot of games that don't really benefit from VR, including some really popular stuff like madden. it's good for first-person games, but due to the issue of latency it won't be popular in multiplayer, which is the star attraction in most modern FPS. so we're looking at a minority of immersive first-person singleplayer games - which does include popular games like skyrim, but how often do they come along? combined with that, it's expensive to buy into, and many developers won't bother making their games compatible with it in the first place, which will make it even less desirable.
>Let's face it, gaming is a form of entertainment that focuses on escapism, identity projection and alternate reality simulation.
for all your talk of "fat neckbeards" this is a very fat neckbeard perspective. normal people who play mobile games all the time don't care as much about escapism or "identity projection". they want something simple and easy that wastes their time, they don't want to strap into bulky equipment just to unwind after work.
VR's neat. Needs a lot of time. Biggest issue will be price point and space. Give it 30-40 years to get where we all want it to be.
>>342725036
Whatever you say, shill.
>>342724291
>we are about to hit the wall of Moore's Law
No, actually. Innovation in nearly every industry is still increasing exponentially. Even assuming a decline will still need to innovation, just at a longer time scale.
>Normalfags (who make up the vast majority of the market) will never buy into thousands of dollars worth of VR equipment
Although the statement is true it has very little to do with the future. Pricing strategies of firms differ greatly. For first-movers they tend to position themselves in a focused-differentiated product-pricing model. This means they want to grow brand perception of quality/luxury. There are already hundreds of firms in the planning stages looking to enter with low-cost or other differentiation models. L2 business
VR is just a fad guys
r-right?
>>342722273
>Truth is, 10-15 years from now the tech will
So basically you're saying "in the future when the technology isn't as shit as it is today it might be decent but now it's actually trash everyone hates on because it is not ready to give a quality experience yet, despite being sold for a high price"? How is that supposed to stop anyone from considering VR a piece of shit today?
>>342724813
Well, i guess i was right on the part where you were too autistic to follow conversation. Let me try and spell my argument out a little bit easier for you.
>/v/ culture likes to hate things
>/v/ culture also thinks if something isn't perfect now, it'll fail
the reality
>technologies that aren't perfect at launch with room for improvement (especially on a scale like VR) will receive huge investment.
I'm saying that although it does suck now, you can't argue that it is not the future of video games. I'm saying that majority of /v/ are too ignorant to understand this.
>>342725810
You do understand that 'the future' means somewhere between now and next gen, and not '10-15 years from now', right? As in, 'The Future is Now'?
>Musk says that to assume any rate of technological advancement at all, the possibility of our entire universe not being a simulation is 1 billion to one.
Could somebody rephrase this in a way that makes sense?
>>342725345
>Innovation in nearly every industry is still increasing exponentially
Citation required
>>342724896
>ducking and jumping is still better bound onto buttons
Yeah, right now. When the technology can scan and render movements as slight as a twitch in your little toe, it definitely won't be better bound to buttons
>won't see huge graphical leaps because of VR
A need to advance complements of a product with huge growth potential will push tech giants to invest more and more into R&D, your argument of the contrary is just confused
>stupid to mimic your face expression in a game
corporations know what consumer's want. Interaction in mulitplayer games is the key.
>the rest
It seems you're a little worried about losing your controller
Your arguments against my time predictions are just as unsourced and subjective as mine. The difference is I try to support my time projections based on an exponential scale of advancement and market growth opportunity resulting in A LOT of investment.
Look back 30 years my friend. Then you will see what 30 years of advancement looks like
I agree with ll of that op and i cant wait until vrmmos become a thing so i can escape my shitty life my body is ready
>>342726028
in simple terms, the argument goes that if any advanced civilization (of which we are an example) eventually starts creating computer simulations full of simulated people, then it stands to reason there would be many more simulated universes than the one real universe. and since we don't know if we live in a simulated universe or not, if we assume there are more simulated universes than real ones, then it stands to reason that we probably live in one of the simulated ones. but the argument is openly based on an unknown assumption, that making that kind of simulation is possible.
Would it work if we could just put on the headsets, sit in a chair leaning back, and use a controller to look and move around?
I dont want to sit upright or stand up and wall around the room to be honest. I just want to lay down with a controller in my hand, the headset on my face and play in a virtual world.
Does rhat sound right?
There are two really silly things I've noticed about HMD apologists. First, they use the word "experience" instead of "game," which should be really off-putting to actual gamers. Second, they can't distinguish between hardware problems (flops, tracker sensitivity) and software problems (shit HUDs, shit locomotion, shit interactivity) and think that better hardware will somehow solve the software problems.
So the problem with all this futurism is, the software problems are nothing new and are largely hardware-independent, and in the actually pretty long history of HMDs no good solutions have been proposed. This doesn't mean that these problems can't be solved, but they've been looked at unsuccessfully by smarter men than Carmack, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
LOL SLEEPKEKS
>>342725769
Your point is exactly my argument.
>>342726013
Is this for real? Like, I know Western civilisations have become very short-term orientated but has it really come to a level where people really believe the literal definition of future has to be constrained in a matter of a couple of years? Future literally means an unspecified point in time ahead of the present moment.
>>342727370
That style of interaction completely ruins immersion for a lot of games.
>>342722273
>must be le neckbeard if u le hate le VR
funny how there's zero acknowledgement to the fact that the VR gimmick has flopped in the past and will continue to flop in the future
>>342728850
OK, so 2000 years from now VR might become viable, that means we shouldn't ever hate it right?
>>342728883
I guess vr is prolly not for me i suppose
>>342727457
>HMD apologists
Ok.
Onto your argument though. Firstly, please try to learn the basics of innovation. Tech advances don't happen with time, they happen with investment. The fact is that the industry right now is considered to have very attractive growth prospects. This means that companies will invest in technologies. Yes, this means software and hardware, which for some reason your logic can't comprehend are possible to investigate together. Although, I like how you understand that the problems can't be solved. The thing is, there is now a corporate race, and innovation will come a lot faster now than previous years' research funding of what, a million or less a year by aviation-training industries?
>>342729127
Why would I acknowledge what you call a "fact", which is really just the uneducated guess of a gamer, to the future of an industry recognised by professionals who get paid to "guess" as having extremely high growth potential.
>>342729415
Can* oops
>>342729415
Innovation does not come from money, it comes from researchers. Money allows one to hire researchers, but money doesn't do any work in itself. This may come as a surprise to people who woke up yesterday to find HMDs being marketed to them, but they've been a research topic for some 30 years. The hardware has improved in some respects, price being the most obvious, but the software problems (e.g., locomotion) are nothing new.
As I said, this doesn't mean these problems can't be solved, just that they haven't and you shouldn't underestimate how much work has been done on them. But then you think the problem in the past was insufficient competition, so whatever.
>>342727348
Furthermore, the probability formulas include rate of innovation for simulation and AI technology and potential life time of intelligent civilisations. With conservative numbers for both categories, the probability is still higher than other philosophies regarding reality.
>>342730038
Well actually, in a capitalist system, innovation correlates with and is dependent of investment. Yes, innovation comes from researchers. Without money, there are no researchers, therefor no innovation. With alot of money, there are many researchers, leading to more innovation. L2 business
>>342729147
Wow. First off, I made a guess of 10-15 years. Secondly, my entire argument is that this board and surrounding gaming culture that deems the entire idea of VR as an indefinite failure is ignorant. My argument is that just because something is shit now, doesn't mean that VR will never be the future
I don't want to pay $600 to strap screens to my head
Wake me up when I can slip my conscious mind into a video game with a discreet implant
>>342731021
If anything, it's an indefinite failure because its current popularity will cause it to stagnate. It 'works' now, why advance it?
Is that reason enough to hate it?
>>342731957
You don't understand how a competitive market operates. It's okay, you're a consumer, but don't try to argue product potential with someone who does.
>>342732245
So how much money have you made off this lush market, Mr. Investor?
>>342731478
Unfortunately that will probably happen long after this generations is dead
>>342722273
>which promotes negativity of every new tech, because it's cool, and the fact that kids are too poor to afford current gen VR so they claim to hate the technology.
No, it's because new technology almost inevitably sucks dick when it's first introduced to the populace. Fucking Model T didn't have air bags, probably didn't have seatbelts, you gotta fucking hand crank it to start up the engine, fuckin thing is loud as hell probably and only goes 5 mph. That sucks dick. Computers were the same way. You could play fucking pong and type shit on a black screen with green letters, you got 512kb of RAM, internet doesn't even exist, etc. That all sucks dick.
>Truth is, 10-15 years from now the tech will
Stop sucking dick? woah big surprise that's EVERY new piece of technology after it's first introduced to consumers!!!! like woooooaaaah what a crazy idea maaaan
>>342722651
>games as we know it will be replaced with something alot more immersive
Yeah remember when people just stopped with cinemas after TV came around
and people stopped playing instruments when the radio came out
and no one drives cars anymore cuz airplanes exist
you fucking thoughtless retard
>>342724774
Wearing a tight fitting helmet with straps that go over your face isn't comfortable.
VR will never substitute couch/chair gaming, best case scenario, it will become its own big thing that is separate from couch/chair gaming.
It's just like saying cinema substituted theater.
What some of you don't realize is that not everyone is gonna want to be legitimately running a five mile sprint, looking around everywhere so they can shoot people. Some people will much rather just use a mouse and keyboard.
>>342730038
Yes, but they have a lot more funding and research now since the tech has finally caught up to make it viable.
Thus, it's during this time that we'll see leaps of progress in the tech.
Wow just like 3DTVs everybody I know immediately went out and bought one because they love wearing shit on their face in order to watch movies
>>342727370
thats how I felt, but I made roomscale for my Vive and I can't go back to sitting down, its so fucking good
