That's my point. But people don't share it because they think the game Will be worse if VR were implemented.
By the way, we are now 94 people, 6 more signs to reach 100. Vote please! https://www.change.org/p/cdprojektred-cyberpunk-2077-vr-version
That's my point. But people don't share it because they think the game Will be worse if VR were implemented.
By the way, we are now 94 people, 6 more signs to reach 100. Vote please! https://www.change.org/p/cdprojektred-cyberpunk-2077-vr-version
No. I meant "3DS." When Nintendo released that handheld, they intended to make extensive use of the 3D display it came with, and early on focused on ways to incorporate it into games. Needless to say, things didn't go anywhere near as planned; the 3D feature became one of the biggest sources of complaints, if not the biggest for that console outright. Eventually, they kinda gave up and made the 2DS spin-off console that is basically the 3DS without the 3D features.
Worse?
Only in that some of the requirements for VR implementation (reduced graphics because you have to render them twice, a UI that's designed to support VR, etc.) mean it will not, can not, be the same game it would be if it wasn't made with VR in mind.
Last edited:
That's not true. VR is not limiting the graphics. The hardware is. If they release CP2077 in 2019, a VR port can be made later. Another different thing is the fact that there aren't many powerful hardware to run this Game on VR. Crysis at its launch (2007) couldn't run on ultra on any pc.
But that's a hardware limitation. With time, this Will not be a problem.
That was 2007. My machine isn't the newest on the market, but it runs all games at launch on Ultra with ease.
The advance of computer technology has slowed. So, as time passes, more and more people are going to have access to Ultra-quality graphics on their PCs and VR, being unable to support it, is just going to get more and more overshadowed by PC graphics.
VR is basically going to slam into the same wall that PCs and consoles have: There is no real path of computer technology advancement right now. Consoles have gotten around this by both relying on gimmicks and on niches of the game market; Nintendo, for example, relies heavily on nostalgia and established multi-generational fanbases, using such things as their Virtual Console releases of past games and their releases of current games to tie together people from across generations and keep themselves afloat. PCs keep going through sheer versatility and the growth of modding.
VR has... well, it has an expensive gimmick that not everyone can use. It doesn't have the sheer amount of options like PCs. It doesn't have the decades of beloved game libraries like Nintendo. It doesn't have the established fanbases and long-standing RPGs like Sony. It doesn't have the shooter market appeal or action game appeal like Microsoft. And unless we break through this plateau fast, it doesn't even have a path of advancement to make the one thing unique about it advanced enough to secure what niche it has.
That is the problem I see with it just from the technical side. And if what I suspected up above about the 3D issue proves correct, then VR will never have a chance simply because it can't overcome the biological hurdle.
Is not relevant if It was on 2007. We will have always new technologies that push the hardware to the limits.
Now, there is Ray Tracing. There is 4k.
Where is the problem with if VR users have to run games on mid settings? It's not a need to run games on ultra.
And you can think whatever you want, but the fact that the game could have worse graphics because a VR version is false. On pc we have variable settings. Base "flat" version would have it's original graphics. The "problem" is for VR users. And VR users prefer to run the game on mid settings but in VR than on ultra on screen. And this should be fixed with the time, and with new graphics cards.
And this is not a case of "make a game for a hardware that doesn't exist". Like Crysis, if our pcs can't run the game NOW, they will can in the future. So it's only a hardware limitation.
About the other fact.. I'm not going to convince you about VR is great and you are not going to convince me that It can't has a chance.
Now, there is Ray Tracing. There is 4k.
Where is the problem with if VR users have to run games on mid settings? It's not a need to run games on ultra.
And you can think whatever you want, but the fact that the game could have worse graphics because a VR version is false. On pc we have variable settings. Base "flat" version would have it's original graphics. The "problem" is for VR users. And VR users prefer to run the game on mid settings but in VR than on ultra on screen. And this should be fixed with the time, and with new graphics cards.
And this is not a case of "make a game for a hardware that doesn't exist". Like Crysis, if our pcs can't run the game NOW, they will can in the future. So it's only a hardware limitation.
About the other fact.. I'm not going to convince you about VR is great and you are not going to convince me that It can't has a chance.
It's very relevant. Compare the number of advancements in hardware capacity in 2002-2009 to the number of advancements in 2010-2018. You'll notice a large decrease.
Ray tracing was pioneered in 1982. 4K graphics cards go back as far as 2013. Neither of these are remotely new technologies.
Ask most people if they want ultra-quality graphics on their computer or mid-range graphics in some expensive goggles, and people will pick the computer nearly every time. The low quality of the graphics compared to what is increasingly common for the home computer is a selling point against VR and a hurdle to its adoption.
In what way is it false? You keep arguing "variable graphics" while ignoring that VR games that don't use simple engines require a special engine made just for VR, that there are a lot of common graphical elements that can't be done in VR, and that VR is not capable of supporting high-end graphics at all and thus the graphics have to be capped at a lower level just to keep VR headsets from burning themselves out. To date, you have not one single technical reason other than "well, PCs can have different levels of graphics settings" for how VR won't result in lower graphics, despite that statement obviously being false for anyone who has any real familiarity with both VR and PC gaming.
So, I am forced to ask... Have you actually played VR games? Because it's increasingly sounding like you haven't. After all, you seem to be completely unfamiliar both with the majority of the VR game market and with how VR graphics actually work.
Except the hardware is not advancing. Most microprocessors have had almost no advancement in actual hardware, with most having minute changes in software to better utilize the existing hardware or simply piling on more and more microprocessors to compensate for the fact the chips themselves are not getting any better; the next gen of chips have repeatedly failed to manifest due to the limits imposed by the laws of thermodynamics. So there is no "can run it in the future" if the future is 20 years from now at minimum. Thus, "only a hardware limitation" is, at this point in the technology cycle, an obstacle around the size of trying to cross the Pacific Ocean in a rowboat.
All VR is doing is grabbing some of the current tech, applying it in a new way, and hoping this somehow works... just like everyone else in the computer industry.
The thing is, I'm not saying VR will not have a chance sometime in the future. I'm saying it has no chance under current technology. Which is the same problem a lot of current experiment and entry-level computer technology is facing. Stagnation points like this are pretty common in human technological advancement.
Last edited:
There are more complex games out there, such as Unknightly, Lone Echo or Zero Caliber, which are much closer to traditional games in terms of gameplay, while utilizing all the advantages of VR.
Google the "LINKS-1 Computer Graphics System." The fact it just wasn't used does not mean it did not exist.
Also, you are completely wrong about how many graphics cards can do 4k at 60fps consistently.
The same VR users I have proven are increasingly not buying VR? Also, nothing you say actually refutes that this is a stumbling block to sales of VR in that it does not allow for selling it to the common people who don't give two shits about immersion, but instead will simply examine whether or not they can get the same game at higher quality on a system they already have.
Immersion is, frankly, a complete waste of time when arguing graphics. Individuals may care, but individuals do not a market make.
How many .esp files are you using for Skyrim? How many .esm? How many Creation Club items have you downloaded for Skyrim for VR? What about Fallout?
"250 mods!" sounds impressive only to someone who is completely unfamiliar with Skyrim mods; most of the mods available are resource-light mods that don't affect performance enough to be noticed.
And how will those things be fixed when the computer hardware itself isn't getting better at anything more than a snail's pace?
For computer hardware? No, it's not an advance. That was a result of a series of software advances. They finally figured out the software tricks they needed to do it on only one card instead of multiple, thanks in part to the efforts Pixar put in with getting the software developed.
Remember what I said about using the same hardware in new ways with new tricks? This is one of the things I meant.
I don't know why you're wasting time at all, but I'm having fun. You have to learn not to take these things too seriously. Life is too short to let yourself be stressed by some argument on the internet. After all, the internet is for three things: Porn, piracy, and arguments.
"Perfectly enjoyable with currently technology" is not a sales pitch. Having hot wax dripped on you is perfectly enjoyable with current technology, but most people are still not going to try it.
Also, porn has been investing in VR since the 1980s. There have been porn VR games out since the early 2000s, in part due to a porn-developed VR console being part of the 4th gen of VR. I'm not going to link the proof on this site because I don't want to be banned, but "porn is available on VR" has been nothing new for around a decade. As someone who is apparently a fan of porn on VR, how did you not know this?
I see TV channels invest in documentals for video games on occasion, using whatever is new on the market. Mostly? It amounts to nothing and people forget it was even made. The media tends to oscillate between "video games are the devil!" and "look at all this cool shit video games can do!" so you should expect horror stories about "how VR will kill us all!" to crop up in a couple of years (which, incidentally, is what killed Sega's VR efforts).
And, really, this is not the first time companies have invested and tried, as I've shown in prior posts.
Finally, you talk about not speaking of something I haven't tried, and yet the only reason you believe I haven't tried it is because I am daring to disagree with you. Dude, that is not how you sell VR; that is how you sell "VR supporters should apologize to trees for using oxygen," as I have some unfortunate experience with.
Wow. That Arkham VR is terrible. That's worse picture quality than Doom 3 for the Joker. Are you certain that's a pic you wanted to include? Because that pic alone sells the idea I'm overestimating the ability of VR to succeed.
Also, I looked at your Skyrim image and video and reverse-searched them through Google; you got them from this site. I've noticed that not one single image you have posted is anything from your own games, but every single image is found on another site or copied from elsewhere. And I know there are ways to take screenshots in VR. So, why are you not posting pics you took yourself? I mean, if you want to sell what it looks like, having shots from an actual working system in use by a regular person is a step in the right direction.
Also, to be blunt: That Skyrim image is terrible. I can do much better, and with fewer mods, using my Nexus bookmarks.
Here's the thing your pictures are showing, that you really should have been more careful about: VR is of unreliable quality. Just the Arkham VR pics show a graphics quality that varies massively from shot to shot. It creates the visual argument that VR tech cannot even handle mid-range graphics all of the time, but instead has to downgrade its own graphics quality at times just to avoid processor overload. Needless to say, when trying to compete against a PC or get VR considered for porting of a game, this is not a message you want people to get.
Google the "LINKS-1 Computer Graphics System." The fact it just wasn't used does not mean it did not exist.
You really like to manipulate, eh?
Also, you are completely wrong about how many graphics cards can do 4k at 60fps consistently.
Aren't we talking about ultra graphics?
The same VR users I have proven are increasingly not buying VR?
I though you had understand that people who bought their VR systems aren't buying them a second time. "Fake news" again.
Also, nothing you say actually refutes that this is a stumbling block to sales of VR in that it does not allow for selling it to the common people who don't give two shits about immersion, but instead will simply examine whether or not they can get the same game at higher quality on a system they already have.
Seriously man...
Immersion is, frankly, a complete waste of time when arguing graphics. Individuals may care, but individuals do not a market make.
How many .esp files are you using for Skyrim? How many .esm? How many Creation Club items have you downloaded for Skyrim for VR? What about Fallout?
"250 mods!" sounds impressive only to someone who is completely unfamiliar with Skyrim mods;
Yep, because for you I'm not familiarized with anythingnot like you, who are talking about VR without tried It. I'm a mod translator on the Nexus, Medievil - Hero of Gallowmere, Clockwork City, Better Vampires, Touring Carriage.. I have nothing to prove with you.
most of the mods available are resource-light mods that don't affect performance enough to be noticed.
And?
And how will those things be fixed when the computer hardware itself isn't getting better at anything more than a snail's pace?
If simply you weren't talking about hoy don't know.. read something about Odyssey + (anti SDE system) or Valve Anti SDE patented system. Or Eye tracking + Foveated rendering.
For computer hardware? No, it's not an advance.
That was a result of a series of software advances.
Hahahahahahah even you can't believe yourself
They finally figured out the software tricks they needed to do it on only one card instead of multiple, thanks in part to the efforts Pixar put in with getting the software developed.
Remember what I said about using the same hardware in new ways with new tricks? This is one of the things I meant.
Of course.. tricks tricks.. but it's impossible make tricks for VR, right?
I don't know why you're wasting time at all, but I'm having fun. You have to learn not to take these things too seriously. Life is too short to let yourself be stressed by some argument on the internet.
Maybe I'm a little stupid. But not enough to receive life lessons on internet
After all, the internet is for three things: Porn, piracy, and arguments.
"Perfectly enjoyable with currently technology" is not a sales pitch. Having hot wax dripped on you is perfectly enjoyable with current technology, but most people are still not going to try it.
Also, porn has been investing in VR since the 1980s. There have been porn VR games out since the early 2000s, in part due to a porn-developed VR console being part of the 4th gen of VR. I'm not going to link the proof on this site because I don't want to be banned, but "porn is available on VR" has been nothing new for around a decade. As someone who is apparently a fan of porn on VR, how did you not know this?
Teach me máster!
I see TV channels invest in documentals for video games on occasion, using whatever is new on the market. Mostly? It amounts to nothing and people forget it was even made. The media tends to oscillate between "video games are the devil!" and "look at all this cool shit video games can do!" so you should expect horror stories about "how VR will kill us all!" to crop up in a couple of years (which, incidentally, is what killed Sega's VR efforts).
Documentals... For VR. Not about VR for TVs.
And, really, this is not the first time companies have invested and tried, as I've shown in prior posts.
Finally, you talk about not speaking of something I haven't tried, and yet the only reason you believe I haven't tried it is because I am daring to disagree with you. Dude, that is not how you sell VR; that is how you sell "VR supporters should apologize to trees for using oxygen," as I have some unfortunate experience with.
Wow. That Arkham VR is terrible. That's worse picture quality than Doom 3 for the Joker.
I don't know who needs to buy a pair of new eyes.. if you or me.
Are you certain that's a pic you wanted to include? Because that pic alone sells the idea I'm overestimating the ability of VR to succeed.
Also, I looked at your Skyrim image and video
When have I told that those pics are mine? One of them has a webpage advertisement and other (Robinson) is a promotional pic!
and reverse-searched them through Google:
Nice work my dear Watson.. Next time be sure to read if I said or not that them are mine
you got them from this site. I've noticed that not one single image you have posted is anything from your own games, but every single image is found on another site or copied from elsewhere. And I know there are ways to take screenshots in VR. So, why are you not posting pics you took yourself?
Because I never took screenshots, when I'm playing, I play. This is a forum conversation and I SUPPOSED any real picture from internet could be valid. Or not?
I mean, if you want to sell what it looks like, having shots from an actual working system in use by a regular person is a step in the right direction.
Also, to be blunt: That Skyrim image is terrible.
First image I took when searching "Skyrim VR mods" with the unique target to show It can be much better, mods aren't restricted on VR.
I can do much better, and with fewer mods, using my Nexus bookmarks.
Here's the thing your pictures are showing, that you really should have been more careful about: VR is of unreliable quality. Just the Arkham VR pics show a graphics quality that varies massively from shot to shot.
No, It doesn't. What's the problem with the Joker? His 3d model? Nope.. only the resolution / quality of the picture. But you should be able to difference the graphics of the game than a bad pic or with low res.
It creates the visual argument that VR tech cannot even handle mid-range graphics all of the time, but instead has to downgrade its own graphics quality at times just to avoid processor overload. Needless to say, when trying to compete against a PC or get VR considered for porting of a game, this is not a message you want people to get.
Not as much off the battlefield these days. I guess it's my age catching up to me. I mean, it feels like it wasn't that long ago I was convincing a colleague "featherless bipeds" is an acceptable definition for "man" just so I could pluck a chicken and scream at him "Behold! I bring you a man!" But, looking back, it's been quite a long time.
Yes. Surprisingly, most "ultra graphics" settings are not made for current technology anymore.
Then why are VR game sales also declining?
Do you want VR to succeed or not?
Yep, because for you I'm not familiarized with anything
Five months ago, you were looking for Skyrim SE mods. You might be a mod translator, but your own words say you primarily play SE instead of VR.
And that's why I asked you about .esp and .esm files, since being able to say how many of those VR can run would prove that VR can handle it with ease. So far, the top-end I've found online is around 100, as opposed to hitting the coded max like the PC does.
Old technology that's been around for awhile. Eye tracking has been used for a long time in lie detector units.
Hahahahahahah even you can't believe yourself
They're not. Both have been around for years. They recently became cheap enough to include in graphics cards, but they've been around in more high-end computers for quite some time.
Not impossible. Not the same tricks or necessarily the ones that will draw people in or overcome the hardware limitations, but not impossible. Unfortunately, a couple of those tricks require scientific knowledge not currently available to human science.
However, the hardware limits and biological limits cannot be bypassed through tricks; they simply have to be worked around.
Maybe I'm a little stupid. But not enough to receive life lessons on internet
No one is smart enough to not receive life lessons on the internet. No one. Yes, I occasionally learn one
Please don't use that term. It's weird to hear it outside certain contexts
Documentals for video games have also existed. They... well, there's a good reason they were forgotten. Let's leave it at that instead of risking scarring everyone on here.
I have 20/18 vision. I tend to very easily pick out 2d objects in 3d games because of it. So, I've gotten used to a certain amount of mixed graphics quality.
When have I told that those pics are mine? One of them has a webpage advertisement and other (Robinson) is a promotional pic!
Nice work my dear Watson.. Next time be sure to read if I said or not that them are mine
Because I never took screenshots, when I'm playing, I play. This is a forum conversation and I SUPPOSED any real picture from internet could be valid. Or not?
I'm just giving you advice on how to present a better argument for what you're saying. It would be harder to refute if it's your own system, rather than just saying "that's a promotional image and not the actual graphics" that many would.
I'll concede that one.
Um... because it literally looks like an image out of Doom 3 with a mid-range graphics setting? When an image is that terrible in quality, it can disguise any good to be had in the graphics, even more so since there's no movement to rely on for seeing other model improvements not readily apparent.
Ok the edit:
Not as much off the battlefield these days. I guess it's my age catching up to me. I mean, it feels like it wasn't that long ago I was convincing a colleague "featherless bipeds" is an acceptable definition for "man" just so I could pluck a chicken and scream at him "Behold! I bring you a man!" But, looking back, it's been quite a long time.
Yes. Surprisingly, most "ultra graphics" settings are not made for current technology anymore.
That's the point. My 1080ti can't handle ultra on every game at 4k@60fps. Only 2080ti can. With a few exceptons. RTX 2070, 2080 and 2080Ti has RT technology. But we are not going to be able to play at 4k@60fps/ultra WITH RT until a few generations ahead. So, the same can be applied to VR.
Then why are VR game sales also declining?
Because VR games on this 2018 are shit. 2017 was a good year. 2019 will be. Also Nintendo 2018 is worse than 2017 for example. People are waiting for good games.. not indie games.
Do you want VR to succeed or not?
The person who buy VR it's because the immersion… it's the most important fact. It's not a screen in front of your eyes. The combo of the wide FOV + stereoscopic 3D + head tracking + 1:1 hands tracking makes your brain "imagine" that all that you see it's true. That's the reason why I told you VR USERS prefer a game on mid settings on a headset than ultra settings on screen. If I have to choose I prefer that by far. Because, nowadays, mid-high-ultra are "closer" on what you see but distant on performance. But the immersion of the headset it's something that you can't experience on a screen. It's simply magic to fight with a sword with your own hands. I imagine shooting to my enemies heads on CP2077 and covering with my own body and... wet dreams!
Five months ago, you were looking for Skyrim SE mods. You might be a mod translator, but your own words say you primarily play SE instead of VR.
Do you know SE mods are for SKVR? Only a few mods are made for VR, to improve some things (for example armored hands, or USSEP VR) but the 99% of the mods are from SE. Also on SE page on the Nexus there is a VR category with 50-60 mods aproximately (last time I saw). I played SE but.. long time ago. And didn't finish the game XD now I'm on VR. And MediEvil mod is AWESOME.
Also, if you found that post from me.. how do you didn't saw this one?
And that's why I asked you about .esp and .esm files, since being able to say how many of those VR can run would prove that VR can handle it with ease. So far, the top-end I've found online is around 100, as opposed to hitting the coded max like the PC does.
If I'm not wrong the limit between esm and esp is 255. I modded my game before the summer and I don't remember, I'll tel you this night. There are a lot like texture mods that don't have esp. I think the 100 limit mod was for Oldrim.
Old technology that's been around for awhile. Eye tracking has been used for a long time in lie detector units.
Eye-tracking and foveated rendering will be a game changer for VR. That's the "Tricks" that can impulse VR on next generations. All of the big companies know this. Valve, Oculus… they are making hard investments on this. Also, varifocal.
They're not. Both have been around for years. They recently became cheap enough to include in graphics cards, but they've been around in more high-end computers for quite some time.
But that's not an evolution?? Normal people now can play with RTX. That was imposibble to think two years ago! When 2040 arrives and Androids and self-drive cars arrive for all people, you are going to say that "it's not an advance because they were invented on 200x?
Not impossible. Not the same tricks or necessarily the ones that will draw people in or overcome the hardware limitations, but not impossible. Unfortunately, a couple of those tricks require scientific knowledge not currently available to human science.
However, the hardware limits and biological limits cannot be bypassed through tricks; they simply have to be worked around.
You are talking about something much more complex. That kind of "Ready Player One" yes, its imposibble at this moments. But nobody talks about that.. you can enjoy actual VR without being that. Step by step. Games on 1990 were a bunch of pixels! Now are a lot of pixels
No one is smart enough to not receive life lessons on the internet. No one. Yes, I occasionally learn one
Please don't use that term. It's weird to hear it outside certain contexts
Sorry for my english (?)
Documentals for video games have also existed. They... well, there's a good reason they were forgotten. Let's leave it at that instead of risking scarring everyone on here.
I have 20/18 vision. I tend to very easily pick out 2d objects in 3d games because of it. So, I've gotten used to a certain amount of mixed graphics quality.
Hmm don't understand you but sorry, It was not my intention, only to make a joke (no acrittude)
I'm just giving you advice on how to present a better argument for what you're saying. It would be harder to refute if it's your own system, rather than just saying "that's a promotional image and not the actual graphics" that many would.
Oh come on we are not politicians
I'll concede that one.
Um... because it literally looks like an image out of Doom 3 with a mid-range graphics setting? When an image is that terrible in quality, it can disguise any good to be had in the graphics, even more so since there's no movement to rely on for seeing other model improvements not readily apparent.
Man, your Doom 3 had to be f*cking awesome, really. I think the Joker looks well. I have a 1080ti but I'm not as demandant with graphics. Also.. you had a few more images if you didn't like that!
Last edited:
Here's another spin I can put on this. I'm not sure if people here were around when the whole Amiga corporation started in the '80s. Through work (Kodak), my father basically got state-of-the-art IBM hardware almost for free. (Sometimes, before the tech was even released on the public market. ) A buddy of mine ended up getting an Amiga 500, and later an Amiga 1200. Frankly, I would have vastly preferred the Amiga over the computers we had at the time. Here we were, with some of the best and most expensive hardware around...and the dinky, little Amiga 500 was sooo much better...for games. The graphics were a LOT better than IBM stuff. To me, that was obvious.
The trouble was, the larger market didn't recognize the potential of the Amiga systems, nor the potential market for gaming. For years. It wasn't until the early-mid '90s that people finally realized that they could take advantage of that technology as a gaming platform. There were a series of issues that held it back:
1.) Amigas were marketed toward business, and they were significantly inferior to either IBM or Apple in that regard.
2.) It was considered kind of embarrassing to advertise a computer for "gaming": a "toy". (They were afraid people would roll their eyes at it.)
3.) There were very few developers that took advantage of its unique strengths to start developing really involved games. Rather than left/right/up/down/jump/punch...only a few devs were like, "Hey...I've got an idea!" resulting in X-COM, Defender of the Crown, Syndicate, Lemmings, etc. that started to create much deeper, more involved experiences and presented them with amazing graphics (only possible at that point on Amigas).
4.) Business concerns tried to maximize profits on existing tech instead of continuing to develop new applications. They wanted to sell, sell, sell rather than worry about honing the things that set them apart.
And...
Amiga took a really long time to catch on, then didn't survive for long before their more successful competitors trumped them. In the end, I feel that the Amigas never really got their moment in the sun. Part of being effective is recognizing -- hey! -- our original idea for this stuff, it's not really working out the way we thought it would. Let's take this in a new direction!
This is what I'd argue is presently happening with VR. I don't think that it's found the correct niche. Can it be effective for gaming? Absolutely! I just don't think that anyone has yet developed the right type of game to get people super-excited about VR. Nor am I convinced that gaming is necessarily where VR will find its home. It's clearly being developed and marketed inefficiently and ineffectually. As a direct result, there are going to be relatively few established developers or manufacturers that will be willing to put too much reliance on it. Someone is eventually going to come up with the "thing" that makes the wider market go, "...WOW!"
Here's what I would be willing to bet the entire farm on: it's not going to be an existing game mechanic.
EDIT: And I can agree with Sard's sentiment above. We've covered the same ground a few times. The future will tell.
) A buddy of mine ended up getting an Amiga 500, and later an Amiga 1200. Frankly, I would have vastly preferred the Amiga over the computers we had at the time. Here we were, with some of the best and most expensive hardware around...and the dinky, little Amiga 500 was sooo much better...for games. The graphics were a LOT better than IBM stuff. To me, that was obvious. The trouble was, the larger market didn't recognize the potential of the Amiga systems, nor the potential market for gaming. For years. It wasn't until the early-mid '90s that people finally realized that they could take advantage of that technology as a gaming platform. There were a series of issues that held it back:
1.) Amigas were marketed toward business, and they were significantly inferior to either IBM or Apple in that regard.
2.) It was considered kind of embarrassing to advertise a computer for "gaming": a "toy". (They were afraid people would roll their eyes at it.)
3.) There were very few developers that took advantage of its unique strengths to start developing really involved games. Rather than left/right/up/down/jump/punch...only a few devs were like, "Hey...I've got an idea!" resulting in X-COM, Defender of the Crown, Syndicate, Lemmings, etc. that started to create much deeper, more involved experiences and presented them with amazing graphics (only possible at that point on Amigas).
4.) Business concerns tried to maximize profits on existing tech instead of continuing to develop new applications. They wanted to sell, sell, sell rather than worry about honing the things that set them apart.
And...
Amiga took a really long time to catch on, then didn't survive for long before their more successful competitors trumped them. In the end, I feel that the Amigas never really got their moment in the sun. Part of being effective is recognizing -- hey! -- our original idea for this stuff, it's not really working out the way we thought it would. Let's take this in a new direction!
This is what I'd argue is presently happening with VR. I don't think that it's found the correct niche. Can it be effective for gaming? Absolutely! I just don't think that anyone has yet developed the right type of game to get people super-excited about VR. Nor am I convinced that gaming is necessarily where VR will find its home. It's clearly being developed and marketed inefficiently and ineffectually. As a direct result, there are going to be relatively few established developers or manufacturers that will be willing to put too much reliance on it. Someone is eventually going to come up with the "thing" that makes the wider market go, "...WOW!"
Here's what I would be willing to bet the entire farm on: it's not going to be an existing game mechanic.
EDIT: And I can agree with Sard's sentiment above. We've covered the same ground a few times. The future will tell.
As the once proud owner of an Atari 800 (with a whopping 32K of RAM) and a Commodore 128 I know the feeling
Limiting it to what is absolutely needed to be addressed.
And that's the problem. It's the same problem that killed the Dreamcast, nearly killed the N64, and did kill the Wii U. They get good games at the start, but lack of interest and lack of support from developers causes the market to die. It's the main reason why Nintendo is going out of their way to secure so many games for Switch launches.
If VR doesn't find some way to turn this around, it doesn't matter what the VR consoles do; VR dies.
Normally it would be because there would be a similar advancement in the high-end either already here or about to arrive. This time... that isn't happening. Instead, we have consumer technology increasingly catching up to the experimental supercomputer technology. That's not evolution; that's just filtering of existing technology. We need to break through this stagnation, and quickly.
Also, I think the following hits the nail on the head for VR's future:
There is a massive amount of interest in VR right now, and has been for years. The military is looking at it for multiple uses, medical schools are considering it for training doctors, aviation has already implemented a form of it for training pilots, there are people looking at it for education... The amount of people saying "We have a major use for this!" based on just the current technology is huge. But, the caveat: None of them are looking at it for purposes of gaming.
If Facebook were willing to have Oculus work with the military, medical schools, aviation schools, and even some educational experts very likely their product would become so much of a household name we'd call every VR headset "an oculus." This is an already existing, and mostly untapped, market they could break into with very little effort by just retooling what they already have. And none of these applications require high-end graphics for accurate work.
Yes, it would mean admitting defeat in the video game market... but the sheer amount of money to be potentially made from that will help with making another go at it later on down the line.
And that's the problem. It's the same problem that killed the Dreamcast, nearly killed the N64, and did kill the Wii U. They get good games at the start, but lack of interest and lack of support from developers causes the market to die. It's the main reason why Nintendo is going out of their way to secure so many games for Switch launches.
If VR doesn't find some way to turn this around, it doesn't matter what the VR consoles do; VR dies.
Normally it would be because there would be a similar advancement in the high-end either already here or about to arrive. This time... that isn't happening. Instead, we have consumer technology increasingly catching up to the experimental supercomputer technology. That's not evolution; that's just filtering of existing technology. We need to break through this stagnation, and quickly.
Also, I think the following hits the nail on the head for VR's future:
There is a massive amount of interest in VR right now, and has been for years. The military is looking at it for multiple uses, medical schools are considering it for training doctors, aviation has already implemented a form of it for training pilots, there are people looking at it for education... The amount of people saying "We have a major use for this!" based on just the current technology is huge. But, the caveat: None of them are looking at it for purposes of gaming.
If Facebook were willing to have Oculus work with the military, medical schools, aviation schools, and even some educational experts very likely their product would become so much of a household name we'd call every VR headset "an oculus." This is an already existing, and mostly untapped, market they could break into with very little effort by just retooling what they already have. And none of these applications require high-end graphics for accurate work.
Yes, it would mean admitting defeat in the video game market... but the sheer amount of money to be potentially made from that will help with making another go at it later on down the line.
Nay. I've tried it, it's nothing more than a novelty. No one would play 100 hours in this mode.
One of the big problems here is cost.
For pilot trainers, medical schools, etc. it's a cost that can be justified because there are multiple users for a single system. For gamers plopping down $350-500+ for a system that can be used on a very limited number of games by one or two people is a pretty major expense when they very system it's being used on (i.e. a console for instance) only costs $300 is pretty hard to swallow. Sure, there are a few folks that always "need" the best and most recent hardware, but they're a minority.
So until they can get the price of VR equipment down, a LOT, I don't think they'll have much success with the average gamer.