saluk wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 19:16:
If you can't play more than 10 minutes without barfing, and that's the average for most folks, there will be issues. And barfing. I skipped the DK2 until I can try it because I fell into the unfortunate bucket of not being able to overcome vr sickness on DK1.
saluk wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 19:16:
10+? The amount of gaming population that needs/wants to spend 10+ hours in one go on a gaming session is tiny. Much smaller than the vr market I'd imagine. The average I'd imagine is somewhere around 3, perhaps skewing higher for certain game types like mmo or moba. If that 2-3 hour experience of vr is substantially better/different than 2-3 hours on more comfortable gaming devices, it can still carve out a sizable niche.
If you can't play more than 10 minutes without barfing, and that's the average for most folks, there will be issues. And barfing. I skipped the DK2 until I can try it because I fell into the unfortunate bucket of not being able to overcome vr sickness on DK1.
I always thought notches outburst in the first place was a bit silly, since the minecrift mod even at that time was already working great for most people. An "official" rift component to minecraft will be nice for people but it's not that substantial. So far facebook-owned oculus doesn't feel different to me than before, it still remains to be seen if that was a good or bad move.
jdreyer wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 18:32:Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:12:
Vid cards were a necessity that were bound to happen sooner rather than later anyway, and people need phones so that's par for the course. Apart from practical applications in science/medicine/military with VR most people aren't going to want to strap a TV to their face. They don't even want to wear 3D glasses and they're a lot less cumbersome. VR for entertainment value will remain niche until they can make them no bigger than a pair of sunglasses or contacts. I really don't see it happening until people can jack in ala Neuromancer/Snow Crash.
Right, I pretty much agree. I think this will be somewhat popular niche, but still niche. And unlike phones and graphic accelerators, I don't see a path for this to go mainstream. We're a few decades from a pair of 50 gram glasses that can project images right to your retinas.
Tom wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 19:13:
What I'm saying is that niche technologies sometimes go mainstream. ... who knows what technologies VR may contribute to in the future.
Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 19:34:
Says the moron who has obvious reading comprehension problems. And you wonder why everyone knows you're stupid?
Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 19:44:Tom wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 19:13:
Btw, saying "smartphones went mainstream because people need phones" seems like a flawed premise to me. Why do they need to pay $300-800 for a smartphone when a $20 feature phone would be sufficient for making calls, taking pictures, sending text messages, etc? People don't need smartphones. But they're a huge, booming business anyway.
Most people buy smartphones because they're bundled with the contract. Except teenagers who want all kinds of crap on their phones I'd suspect most adults don't use their smart phones for much beyond using it as a phone, followed by the music player, texting, camera in limited use. I've had my smartphone for 4 or 5 years now and I'd be surprised if I've sent more than a dozen texts or taken a dozen pics. I do listen to music on it regularly however. And the only reason I bought it was because I lost my old phone. I ordered this from HK because it was unlocked and half the price there as it was here.
As I've stated before, I actually think the initial adoption rate will be quite high as people always want the latest toy. But most will probably be gathering dust on shelves before too long.
Tom wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 19:13:
Btw, saying "smartphones went mainstream because people need phones" seems like a flawed premise to me. Why do they need to pay $300-800 for a smartphone when a $20 feature phone would be sufficient for making calls, taking pictures, sending text messages, etc? People don't need smartphones. But they're a huge, booming business anyway.
yonder wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:43:
Are any of your opinions based in fact? You confuse "changing ones mind about concepts" with "selling out" and you think that someone with a net value of 33 billion is a "multi-millionaire". And you wonder why you're the town jester.
Keep being hilarious. We'll keep laughing.
Quboid wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:47:yonder wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:43:
Are any of your opinions based in fact? You confuse "changing ones mind about concepts" with "selling out" and you think that someone with a net value of 33 billion is a "multi-millionaire". And you wonder why you're the town jester.
Keep being hilarious. We'll keep laughing.
He's referring to Notch ($150M), not Mark Zuckerberg ($33B). I still don't see how this is selling out, neither what principle he's selling nor what money he's receiving.
Quboid wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:24:jdreyer wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 15:10:Quboid wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 13:22:
I would have thought Minecraft isn't very suited to the Rift. I wouldn't want to spend an entire evening wearing the DK1's headset in one go and I don't expect that to change in the near future.
I've been watching Minecraft vids on Google Cardboard to get an idea of what it would be like, and it's totally awesome. You get completely immersed in the world. MC is one of the best uses of VR due to the wide variety of object distance, providing a sense of scale and depth lacking on a flat screen. Standing on the edge of a cliff is both breathtaking and induces a sense of vertigo. Caves intimidate extending down into the dark distance. Trees reach into the sky. It's easy to assess the distance of approaching mobs. The only OR game movie I've seen that is similar is Skyrim.
I can see that it would be very suited for a while but I don't think existing VR tech is ready for someone to spend 3, 4, 10+ hours with in one go. I have the DK1 and it's not comfortable enough for this. I expect CV1 will be lighter and CV2 (or whatever version the second major revision will be) to be a big improvement as they hone the hardware and supply lines but not enough I guess.
Comfort is probably VR's biggest hurdle at this point. Something like those Oakley MP3 player sunglasses should be the aim but we're quite some way away from that.
Edit: This is oddly similar to what Cutter said, despite me predicting Rift would succeed and Cutter predicting it would fail
jdreyer wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 18:33:
I think you're making my point for me? You kind of start off opposing my statement, but support it at the end.
jdreyer wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 18:32:Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:12:
Vid cards were a necessity that were bound to happen sooner rather than later anyway, and people need phones so that's par for the course. Apart from practical applications in science/medicine/military with VR most people aren't going to want to strap a TV to their face. They don't even want to wear 3D glasses and they're a lot less cumbersome. VR for entertainment value will remain niche until they can make them no bigger than a pair of sunglasses or contacts. I really don't see it happening until people can jack in ala Neuromancer/Snow Crash.
Right, I pretty much agree. I think this will be somewhat popular niche, but still niche. And unlike phones and graphic accelerators, I don't see a path for this to go mainstream. We're a few decades from a pair of 50 gram glasses that can project images right to your retinas.
Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:15:
He's a multi-millionaire, not billionaire so it's not that much. However, the fact that he is selling out when he doesn't need the money only makes it worse. Hell, I'd sell out for the right amount. Principles start to get pretty rubbery with the more money that's involved. I'd feel ashamed of course. But cruising around the Caribbean on my 50ft sailboat, drinking rum and banging hot island chicks has a way of assuaging that guilt PDQ.
Tom wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 15:48:jdreyer wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 14:55:
And it really seems like Zuck was making this investment not primarily as a financial decision, but as a fan of the technology ($2B for niche tech? Are you kidding me?).
3D hardware acceleration was once niche tech. Smartphones were once niche tech. Someone with the means and vision could have made a fortune on those and any number of other things. Zuck's $2B could easily be handsomely rewarded. And if it isn't? No big loss for him, he'll still be filthy rich no matter what. And he'll have had tons of fun with Oculus Rift. Why would he NOT do that deal, given the opportunity? Why would you not do it?
Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:12:
Vid cards were a necessity that were bound to happen sooner rather than later anyway, and people need phones so that's par for the course. Apart from practical applications in science/medicine/military with VR most people aren't going to want to strap a TV to their face. They don't even want to wear 3D glasses and they're a lot less cumbersome. VR for entertainment value will remain niche until they can make them no bigger than a pair of sunglasses or contacts. I really don't see it happening until people can jack in ala Neuromancer/Snow Crash.
yonder wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:43:
Are any of your opinions based in fact? You confuse "changing ones mind about concepts" with "selling out" and you think that someone with a net value of 33 billion is a "multi-millionaire". And you wonder why you're the town jester.
Keep being hilarious. We'll keep laughing.