If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?.
The main thing was the lack of mass manufactured, high quality small size screens, the lack of cheap, reliable positional tracking hardware, and the lack of computing power.
Smartphones solved the first two, and we're now at the point with processing power where environments can be rendered with high enough fidelity to trick your brain without conscious effort on your part.
So it was refinement of a platform that you're actually talking about and not the actual platform itself.
TV didn't wait to catch on until color, or 1080p or such like. If you're serious about making the argument that this is an equivalent to that invention your argument has some issues where it has been previously crippled by the technology available.
This is not that hard to grasp, I feel like you're intentionally picking holes in semantics.
It is fairly logical that virtual reality as a platform relies on the ability to trick the human brain into believing it is somewhere else without conscious effort to believe that.
The tech behind the platform is now at a point where that is achievable. In the 90s last attempt at the tech, it wasn't.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
To get it back to consoles the large problem I originally brought up is that if the reasons for this next generation of consoles is VR then I don't see that as being a draw for most people who may well not be sold or be able to be sold on the current VR tech.
We're the minority in how we interact with digital platforms. I don't think most gamers want that level of immersion right now.
It's only going to take a store demo to solve the problem of convincing people. The nice thing about VR is that it doesn't need anyone to do the convincing. For the majority of people, it sells itself.
I feel like you might be looking at edge cases where people can't enjoy immersion, like your difficult situation and ignoring the majority of cases where they can practically and easily enjoy it.
At the end of the day, if your argument is that VR as a concept is not capable of achieving mainstream penetration, then your argument is essentially that Valve, HTC, Sony, Samsung, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are all making huge mistakes by investing heavily into it. And if your argument is that current tech has too many limitations to be widely adopted, then I direct you specifically to Samsung, Facebook, Sony, Valve, and HTC, all of whom have launched or are soon to launch full consumer devices that are going to need to be sold to somebody. Facebook didn't buy Oculus for a couple billion just to sell a hundred thousand headsets to the most bleeding edge of enthusiasts.
To get it back to consoles the large problem I originally brought up is that if the reasons for this next generation of consoles is VR then I don't see that as being a draw for most people who may well not be sold or be able to be sold on the current VR tech.
We're the minority in how we interact with digital platforms. I don't think most gamers want that level of immersion right now.
It's only going to take a store demo to solve the problem of convincing people. The nice thing about VR is that it doesn't need anyone to do the convincing. For the majority of people, it sells itself.
I think you are conflating your personal experiences with that of others on a level that is not warranted. Do not think I haven't daydreamed about loading up Elite: Dangerous on one of these bad boys and going to town.
Also know that I don't have the ability to do so and even when I do one day I am not sure I will be able to justify the cost of it to myself for the amount of time I have to play games anymore (nor would I want to disconnect myself that much when playing. I want to be reachable by my wife even after I don't NEED to be).
It's not so cut and dry. Often times the ancillary factors of a tech are what keeps it from catching on.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
+1
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
To get it back to consoles the large problem I originally brought up is that if the reasons for this next generation of consoles is VR then I don't see that as being a draw for most people who may well not be sold or be able to be sold on the current VR tech.
We're the minority in how we interact with digital platforms. I don't think most gamers want that level of immersion right now.
It's only going to take a store demo to solve the problem of convincing people. The nice thing about VR is that it doesn't need anyone to do the convincing. For the majority of people, it sells itself.
I think you are conflating your personal experiences with that of others on a level that i snot warranted. Do not think I haven't daydreamed about loading up Elite: Dangerous on one of these bad boys and going to town.
Also know that I don't have the ability to do so and even when I do one day I am not sure I will be able to justify the cost of it to myself for the amount of time I have to play games anymore (nor would I want to disconnect myself that much when playing. I want to be reachable by my wife even after I don't NEED to be).
It's not so cut and dry. Often times the ancillary factors of a tech are what keeps it from catching on.
I think you're overestimating the isolation, but I'll grant that the ability to lock yourself away in a virtual world is not possible for everybody for extended periods.
However, the fact that some people, like yourself, are in a situation where a platform that permits immersion in virtual worlds does not diminish the capability of the tech to deliver that immersion. I think you are questioning some of the practicalities of the every day use of VR, which are very valid things to question, but most of the skepticism around VR that I see is related to questioning the capability of the technology, and that much, I think, is not in doubt.
The "You're not allowed to have an opinion on any aspect at all unless you've physically used it" is bullshit and needs to die now.
People who have tried VR don't, for the most part, make comparisons to 3DTVs, so it's a fair statement to make.
I say for the most part because there will always be the odd skeptic, but I've demoed VR to a LOT of people, even with the primitive development kits, and people of all ages from 8 to 80 have walked away convinced.
So you make a living pushing VR products?
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
The "You're not allowed to have an opinion on any aspect at all unless you've physically used it" is bullshit and needs to die now.
People who have tried VR don't, for the most part, make comparisons to 3DTVs, so it's a fair statement to make.
I say for the most part because there will always be the odd skeptic, but I've demoed VR to a LOT of people, even with the primitive development kits, and people of all ages from 8 to 80 have walked away convinced.
So you make a living pushing VR products?
No, I just like showing off a really awesome experience.. I like seeing the contrast between people as they go in and come out, and seeing everyone's wonder.
Yeah let's bring it back to iterative consoles where this argument began.
There has to be more to them being released than to just make them VR ready or they won't be a good cost proposition. Ignoring all the other factors I said before aside from cost if the only reason to push the power dial up is VR then people who are balking at a 3 year life cycle and having to spend more money on a new console already will definitely not want to throw in for a VR headset.
If this isn't just for VR and its just to start a cycle of iterative upgrades to make more money then they'll have a hard time selling that too.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
There's a difference between "convincing somebody" and "convincing somebody that they went out and dropped the ~$1000 for themselves. How many people did the latter?
I've also seen people go to hilarious lengths to move the goalposts to avoid and discredit anything even remotely negative. I believe there was one reporter who tested it, and got absolutely sick as a dog because it wasn't 100% calibrated right. Naturally it gets dismissed as "Oh their opinion doesn't count then unless they have a perfect positive experience". When in reality that's as real and valid an opinion as you can get. You get one little thing wrong and your body might freak out? That's important to know! The enthusiasts know how to set up correctly, but what about everybody else? Most people out there don't even have their TV's set up right, how the hell are they going to handle VR settings?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
To get it back to consoles the large problem I originally brought up is that if the reasons for this next generation of consoles is VR then I don't see that as being a draw for most people who may well not be sold or be able to be sold on the current VR tech.
We're the minority in how we interact with digital platforms. I don't think most gamers want that level of immersion right now.
It may be an age thing, but the idea of closing myself off completely from my surroundings for hours at a time is not appealing. I'd like to hear the knock on the door.
They have to do something to increase the speed of consoles rapidly in the next couple of years. VR is the biggest gaming advancement since games made the leap from 2D to 3D, and consoles need to be able to power it.
Making sure the newer machines can run all of the older games at least softens the blow a little.
I feel like I'm a minority, but I sincerely hope that VR dies on the vine. I've seen nothing that makes me think it would ever be my preferred way to play.
I have to wonder if this isn't just an attempt to take full advantage of the new 14 nanometer chips without having to wait 3-4 years for a new generation.
I thought I read somewhere that AMD was kind of forcing their hand as they've tooled up for 14nm and in the process pulled back from 28nm thereby making the 28nm chips more expensive.
Also, from other articles I've read, it seems the new PS4 is going to be dang near required to have a good PSVR experience.
Yeah let's bring it back to iterative consoles where this argument began.
There has to be more to them being released than to just make them VR ready or they won't be a good cost proposition. Ignoring all the other factors I said before aside from cost if the only reason to push the power dial up is VR then people who are balking at a 3 year life cycle and having to spend more money on a new console already will definitely not want to throw in for a VR headset.
If this isn't just for VR and its just to start a cycle of iterative upgrades to make more money then they'll have a hard time selling that too.
I really think that this whole thing is borne of the realization that, with the ability to patch in new features and the slowing improvement of visuals,* the time for a "natural" new generation is getting farther and farther away. So they're deciding to turn to the hardcore who care about the latest and greatest to keep making money.
*Yes, I know processing power can improve visuals infinitely, but it's taking more and more power to make less and less of an apparent improvement, especially to people who ain't us.
I thought I read somewhere that AMD was kind of forcing their hand as they've tooled up for 14nm and in the process pulled back from 28nm thereby making the 28nm chips more expensive.
Also, from other articles I've read, it seems the new PS4 is going to be dang near required to have a good PSVR experience.
The AMD thing makes the most sense to me. Out of all the random assumptions, manufacturing costs and ease of acquisition seems the simplest explanation.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
EDIT: on second thoughts, we already had this discussion, I won't derail the conversation further.
I really think that this whole thing is borne of the realization that, with the ability to patch in new features and the slowing improvement of visuals,* the time for a "natural" new generation is getting farther and farther away. So they're deciding to turn to the hardcore who care about the latest and greatest to keep making money.
I find this attitude odd.
Out of all the possible types of gaming, VR gaming is by far the most accessible to non gamers, particularly when it involves motion controls. Gabe and Tycho have made multiple newsposts expressing precisely this experience.
Aside from the high barrier for entry (and gamers aren't the only people with money to burn on hobbies), I think VR is going to do more for the mainstream adoption of PC and console gaming than any other gaming tech has done up to this point.
Depends on what you mean. I think a lot of people who enjoy the novelty of having a "VR experience" still have serious reservations about using it for hours on end on a routine basis. The target market for VR right now is a single video game player who lives in an area where he does not have to worry about paying attention to a) family members b) potential visitors c) home security d) the weather.
The reason the laser disc (and 3D) comparison is flawed is because both of those are just new ways to experience existing content. They improve on what's already there, they don't add anything new and they don't change much. 3D movies improve the movie watching experience a bit, laser discs improved video quality a bit.
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?
I'm not sure that the Laserdisc comparison is as far off as you like. We iterate hardware faster than we did in those days so even if it is a good analogy I'm not sure the results will be the same.
I thought I read somewhere that AMD was kind of forcing their hand as they've tooled up for 14nm and in the process pulled back from 28nm thereby making the 28nm chips more expensive.
Also, from other articles I've read, it seems the new PS4 is going to be dang near required to have a good PSVR experience.
You mean this article? From what they've said, the move to 14nm was significantly expensive (they estimate $120-220 million), as they had to redevelop the chips to do it. The upgraded models are a result of that cost, as they'll want to get more than just slim models out of an investment that large.
As for the PSVR thing, that was one unnamed developer in an Edge article and he may not actually have been talking about the PS4k, as he doesn't specifically mention it and that view would clash with all the hands-on demos that've taken place over the last two years (they stopped demoing stuff on PCs in 2014). He may have been referring to the little processing box that comes with the PSVR headset instead, which would make more sense as that's what's handling the temporal reprojection.
The reason the laser disc (and 3D) comparison is flawed is because both of those are just new ways to experience existing content. They improve on what's already there, they don't add anything new and they don't change much. 3D movies improve the movie watching experience a bit, laser discs improved video quality a bit.
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?
I'm not sure that the Laserdisc comparison is as far off as you like. We iterate hardware faster than we did in those days so even if it is a good analogy I'm not sure the results will be the same.
I thought I read somewhere that AMD was kind of forcing their hand as they've tooled up for 14nm and in the process pulled back from 28nm thereby making the 28nm chips more expensive.
Also, from other articles I've read, it seems the new PS4 is going to be dang near required to have a good PSVR experience.
You mean this article? From what they've said, the move to 14nm was significantly expensive (they estimate $120-220 million), as they had to redevelop the chips to do it. The upgraded models are a result of that cost, as they'll want to get more than just slim models out of an investment that large.
As for the PSVR thing, that was one unnamed developer in an Edge article and he may not actually have been talking about the PS4k, as he doesn't specifically mention it and that view would clash with all the hands-on demos that've taken place over the last two years (they stopped demoing stuff on PCs in 2014). He may have been referring to the little processing box that comes with the PSVR headset instead, which would make more sense as that's what's handling the temporal reprojection.
The box isn't doing that. All the box does is unwarp the image to display it on the TV, plus it handles the spatial 3D audio processing.
It doesn't do anything related to the image that you see in the headset.
The PC gaming market produced $21.5 billion in hardware sales last year, according to data from Jon Peddie Research, which is more than double the revenues derived from console sales. More notably, unlike the broader PC market, which continues shrinking, gaming PC sales are projected to increase over the next couple of years. The JPR analysis suggests the biggest chunk of gaming PC revenue — somewhere in the vicinity of 44 percent — comes from the so-called enthusiast segment, which the researchers identify as "very performance and style oriented, much like sports car owners."
I don't like the line of reasoning that " X industry should just give up" but the data suggests more money is made PC side these days. Consoles won't ever go away, but Indie games and MOBAs are among the best sellers in general for gaming.
PC gaming has been "dying" since like 1996.
It has become a sort of in-joke for PC gamers due to the slew of articles that get released every time a new console launches about how the PC is dead now for reals this time no seriously guys.
I keep hearing the same thing about consoles too, how each generation is "the last" and they're all going to jump out of the pool to make way for PCs.
Seems like it's just everyone's doing alright, to me.
They're about a generation away from being normal PCs that are the only devices allowed to run a particular subset of games for no apparent reason.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
He made an interesting comment that I don't know if he fully caught or not.
A new iPhone 6 Plus, after taxes, is over a thousand dollars - but nobody does that. They pay incrementally, or they exchange old hardware.
The bolded part is key. Because neither company is offering either, nor do I really expect them to. There's Gamestop, but they'll fleece the fuck out of you. And then drop the value if tons of people start trading their consoles in en mass. Finally there's independant selling, like eBay and the like, but I don't really count that because that option exists for everything regarding everything.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
I expect that to be the way things go eventually. It's too compelling a business model for both consumer and manufacturer. With the fact that online multiplayer requires a subscription to access anyway, increasing that subscription cost to get a shiny new console all the time doesn't seem too big an ask. It works wonders in the smartphone market. Smartphone contracts are usually roughly double the monthly cost of an equivalent prepaid plan once you factor in handset charges, and people lap those up.
Dhalphir on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
MS did try a contract pricing plan late in the 360's life. I wonder if they plan on doing that, again.
The reason the laser disc (and 3D) comparison is flawed is because both of those are just new ways to experience existing content. They improve on what's already there, they don't add anything new and they don't change much. 3D movies improve the movie watching experience a bit, laser discs improved video quality a bit.
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?
I'm not sure that the Laserdisc comparison is as far off as you like. We iterate hardware faster than we did in those days so even if it is a good analogy I'm not sure the results will be the same.
I thought I read somewhere that AMD was kind of forcing their hand as they've tooled up for 14nm and in the process pulled back from 28nm thereby making the 28nm chips more expensive.
Also, from other articles I've read, it seems the new PS4 is going to be dang near required to have a good PSVR experience.
You mean this article? From what they've said, the move to 14nm was significantly expensive (they estimate $120-220 million), as they had to redevelop the chips to do it. The upgraded models are a result of that cost, as they'll want to get more than just slim models out of an investment that large.
As for the PSVR thing, that was one unnamed developer in an Edge article and he may not actually have been talking about the PS4k, as he doesn't specifically mention it and that view would clash with all the hands-on demos that've taken place over the last two years (they stopped demoing stuff on PCs in 2014). He may have been referring to the little processing box that comes with the PSVR headset instead, which would make more sense as that's what's handling the temporal reprojection.
The box isn't doing that. All the box does is unwarp the image to display it on the TV, plus it handles the spatial 3D audio processing.
It doesn't do anything related to the image that you see in the headset.
Ah shit, I was trying to remember its use but just ended up going with the most common speculation instead of looking it up. Nevermind then.
The PC gaming market produced $21.5 billion in hardware sales last year, according to data from Jon Peddie Research, which is more than double the revenues derived from console sales. More notably, unlike the broader PC market, which continues shrinking, gaming PC sales are projected to increase over the next couple of years. The JPR analysis suggests the biggest chunk of gaming PC revenue — somewhere in the vicinity of 44 percent — comes from the so-called enthusiast segment, which the researchers identify as "very performance and style oriented, much like sports car owners."
I don't like the line of reasoning that " X industry should just give up" but the data suggests more money is made PC side these days. Consoles won't ever go away, but Indie games and MOBAs are among the best sellers in general for gaming.
PC gaming has been "dying" since like 1996.
It has become a sort of in-joke for PC gamers due to the slew of articles that get released every time a new console launches about how the PC is dead now for reals this time no seriously guys.
I keep hearing the same thing about consoles too, how each generation is "the last" and they're all going to jump out of the pool to make way for PCs.
Seems like it's just everyone's doing alright, to me.
They're about a generation away from being normal PCs that are the only devices allowed to run a particular subset of games for no apparent reason.
Even if this console generation manages to be "the last" the AAA pubs will just do the same thing they did last gen -- design for the console specs and give PCs options for greater resolution and other easy tweaks. Lowest common denominator and all.
Well, that and the fact that AAA publishers can barely survive trying to take full advantage of the current power levels as it is.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
He made an interesting comment that I don't know if he fully caught or not.
A new iPhone 6 Plus, after taxes, is over a thousand dollars - but nobody does that. They pay incrementally, or they exchange old hardware.
The bolded part is key. Because neither company is offering either, nor do I really expect them to.
There's literally been no official announcement from either Sony or Microsoft on the matter. We basically have no clue what they're going to be offering.
Feels like Microsoft is basically "giving up" on this generation. I mean who would buy a XBox (S or not) now with Scorpio so close? They really need a Scorpio + Rift bundle ready for Holiday 2017.
The beginning of this has a really good talk with Phil Spencer about all things Xbox, including the Scorpio and what they're actually aiming to do moving forward.
Feels like Microsoft is basically "giving up" on this generation. I mean who would buy a XBox (S or not) now with Scorpio so close? They really need a Scorpio + Rift bundle ready for Holiday 2017.
Scorpio's power is primarily intended for 4k and VR; and if you don't plan on utilizing either of those, an S will suit you perfectly fine. Also the S is probably going to be a cheaper product than Scorpio when that hits.
Feels like Microsoft is basically "giving up" on this generation. I mean who would buy a XBox (S or not) now with Scorpio so close? They really need a Scorpio + Rift bundle ready for Holiday 2017.
Polygon did an interview with Phil Spencer regarding their announcement, and the three boxes... two relevant quotes:
... AG: Was there discussion about the detrimental effect it could have, for example on the launch of Xbox One S and the holiday it could have?
PS: Absolutely. And I think if you were running the program based only on the consoles we sell, maybe somebody would make a different decision. Definitely if you were making a decision on how many consoles you'd sell in the next 12 months, maybe you'd make a different decision.
I don't know if that's actually true, though, because while people in the industry focus a lot on the power and performance of Scorpio, which I'm very proud of, I can tell you as someone who sees the numbers on what's selling, price point is the most important thing about consoles being sold. So the fact that we were able to announce Xbox One S at $299 I think will be in many ways as important if not more important to the install base of Xbox One. Both of those things are really important. I think in the industry it's really important to think "power power power," but price is very very important. Even today, we announced the original Xbox One at a promotional price of $279. And I think that's a great opportunity for people to buy it.
But yeah. We've been talking for a couple of years about our vision for Xbox, about our players playing on Xbox and Windows with Play Anywhere, to buy a game and have it available on both Windows and console, letting people play cross-network, making sure the development tools for our partners are there to make that process easier. So I felt like as a proof point for our vision, and for transparency with our customers and our creators, I wanted to talk about Scorpio here. I feel confident because Xbox One S is a great product at a great price.
... AG: I think my question from there is when players hear that a console that is more than 400 percent more powerful than the Xbox One they have in their house right now is coming out, it creates a certain amount of upgrade anxiety. And while you are messaging that they don't need to worry, they are worried, if the response to the things we've published and what I've seen on Twitter are any indication. So is that something you expected to happen?
PS: We wanted to be very deliberate in our messaging around every game that gets created, that we're going to support those games on Xbox One S and Scorpio, making sure that the console experience that you and I have come to expect and have grown up with will be there, that Live experience and those accessories. I think anytime there's something new coming — let's take the other example: if we announced Scorpio as a gen 9 console, and we didn't talk about it as part of the same family, the pushback on "you cut this generation short, I just invested in Xbox One!" That's something I didn't want to happen as head of the platform. I wanted to make sure that we put customers in a place where when and if they decide they want to upgrade they can.
With respect to Mr. Spencer, I don't think that's how the market is going to react. Obviously, he has better "universal" metrics to draw from than I do as an individual user/gamer, but, anecdotally speaking, all of the people sitting near me have pretty much crossed XBox off their xmas lists due to this. I do agree that price point plays a HUGE factor in console sales, but after 3 years, we're getting closer to market saturation; there just aren't that many more new console buyers who will be looking at price. Maybe they're hoping that they'll be the "second console" in gamer's homes? I dunno. PC gamers who have a console as well will be dumping XBox for "play anywhere" Windows 10. Heck, I was actually looking at an XBone this holiday season, and now I'm not. Without grasping at straws, I just can't see how this will be a good thing for XBox.
And, regardless of their messaging, Scorpio _is_ a gen 9 system. It just happens to have built-in backwards compatibility. And while that's great for pre-release buzz and transitional periods, once you're 2 years into a new cycle, it's just so much unneeded overhead baggage. It's also 12 to 18 months away. I'm certainly not going to start putting money aside for a system that doesn't even exist (yet) that has features that I cant use (yet). I'm more likely to upgrade to a new TV before I buy another console.
There's also the fact that Microsoft has pretty much said that, unless you already have a 4K TV, you pretty much won't get any additional benefit from Scorpio.
Posts
This is not that hard to grasp, I feel like you're intentionally picking holes in semantics.
It is fairly logical that virtual reality as a platform relies on the ability to trick the human brain into believing it is somewhere else without conscious effort to believe that.
The tech behind the platform is now at a point where that is achievable. In the 90s last attempt at the tech, it wasn't.
It's only going to take a store demo to solve the problem of convincing people. The nice thing about VR is that it doesn't need anyone to do the convincing. For the majority of people, it sells itself.
I feel like you might be looking at edge cases where people can't enjoy immersion, like your difficult situation and ignoring the majority of cases where they can practically and easily enjoy it.
At the end of the day, if your argument is that VR as a concept is not capable of achieving mainstream penetration, then your argument is essentially that Valve, HTC, Sony, Samsung, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are all making huge mistakes by investing heavily into it. And if your argument is that current tech has too many limitations to be widely adopted, then I direct you specifically to Samsung, Facebook, Sony, Valve, and HTC, all of whom have launched or are soon to launch full consumer devices that are going to need to be sold to somebody. Facebook didn't buy Oculus for a couple billion just to sell a hundred thousand headsets to the most bleeding edge of enthusiasts.
I think you are conflating your personal experiences with that of others on a level that is not warranted. Do not think I haven't daydreamed about loading up Elite: Dangerous on one of these bad boys and going to town.
Also know that I don't have the ability to do so and even when I do one day I am not sure I will be able to justify the cost of it to myself for the amount of time I have to play games anymore (nor would I want to disconnect myself that much when playing. I want to be reachable by my wife even after I don't NEED to be).
It's not so cut and dry. Often times the ancillary factors of a tech are what keeps it from catching on.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I think you're overestimating the isolation, but I'll grant that the ability to lock yourself away in a virtual world is not possible for everybody for extended periods.
However, the fact that some people, like yourself, are in a situation where a platform that permits immersion in virtual worlds does not diminish the capability of the tech to deliver that immersion. I think you are questioning some of the practicalities of the every day use of VR, which are very valid things to question, but most of the skepticism around VR that I see is related to questioning the capability of the technology, and that much, I think, is not in doubt.
So you make a living pushing VR products?
No, I just like showing off a really awesome experience.. I like seeing the contrast between people as they go in and come out, and seeing everyone's wonder.
There has to be more to them being released than to just make them VR ready or they won't be a good cost proposition. Ignoring all the other factors I said before aside from cost if the only reason to push the power dial up is VR then people who are balking at a 3 year life cycle and having to spend more money on a new console already will definitely not want to throw in for a VR headset.
If this isn't just for VR and its just to start a cycle of iterative upgrades to make more money then they'll have a hard time selling that too.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I've also seen people go to hilarious lengths to move the goalposts to avoid and discredit anything even remotely negative. I believe there was one reporter who tested it, and got absolutely sick as a dog because it wasn't 100% calibrated right. Naturally it gets dismissed as "Oh their opinion doesn't count then unless they have a perfect positive experience". When in reality that's as real and valid an opinion as you can get. You get one little thing wrong and your body might freak out? That's important to know! The enthusiasts know how to set up correctly, but what about everybody else? Most people out there don't even have their TV's set up right, how the hell are they going to handle VR settings?
It may be an age thing, but the idea of closing myself off completely from my surroundings for hours at a time is not appealing. I'd like to hear the knock on the door.
I feel like I'm a minority, but I sincerely hope that VR dies on the vine. I've seen nothing that makes me think it would ever be my preferred way to play.
Also, from other articles I've read, it seems the new PS4 is going to be dang near required to have a good PSVR experience.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
I really think that this whole thing is borne of the realization that, with the ability to patch in new features and the slowing improvement of visuals,* the time for a "natural" new generation is getting farther and farther away. So they're deciding to turn to the hardcore who care about the latest and greatest to keep making money.
*Yes, I know processing power can improve visuals infinitely, but it's taking more and more power to make less and less of an apparent improvement, especially to people who ain't us.
The AMD thing makes the most sense to me. Out of all the random assumptions, manufacturing costs and ease of acquisition seems the simplest explanation.
Depends on what you mean. I think a lot of people who enjoy the novelty of having a "VR experience" still have serious reservations about using it for hours on end on a routine basis. The target market for VR right now is a single video game player who lives in an area where he does not have to worry about paying attention to a) family members b) potential visitors c) home security d) the weather.
Why did smartphones and tablets fail in the 90s?
You mean this article? From what they've said, the move to 14nm was significantly expensive (they estimate $120-220 million), as they had to redevelop the chips to do it. The upgraded models are a result of that cost, as they'll want to get more than just slim models out of an investment that large.
As for the PSVR thing, that was one unnamed developer in an Edge article and he may not actually have been talking about the PS4k, as he doesn't specifically mention it and that view would clash with all the hands-on demos that've taken place over the last two years (they stopped demoing stuff on PCs in 2014). He may have been referring to the little processing box that comes with the PSVR headset instead, which would make more sense as that's what's handling the temporal reprojection.
The box isn't doing that. All the box does is unwarp the image to display it on the TV, plus it handles the spatial 3D audio processing.
It doesn't do anything related to the image that you see in the headset.
They're about a generation away from being normal PCs that are the only devices allowed to run a particular subset of games for no apparent reason.
For the lazy.
The bolded part is key. Because neither company is offering either, nor do I really expect them to. There's Gamestop, but they'll fleece the fuck out of you. And then drop the value if tons of people start trading their consoles in en mass. Finally there's independant selling, like eBay and the like, but I don't really count that because that option exists for everything regarding everything.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Ah shit, I was trying to remember its use but just ended up going with the most common speculation instead of looking it up. Nevermind then.
Even if this console generation manages to be "the last" the AAA pubs will just do the same thing they did last gen -- design for the console specs and give PCs options for greater resolution and other easy tweaks. Lowest common denominator and all.
Well, that and the fact that AAA publishers can barely survive trying to take full advantage of the current power levels as it is.
I feel like another 5 years of smartphone plans has probably softened the userbase enough to try again.
There's literally been no official announcement from either Sony or Microsoft on the matter. We basically have no clue what they're going to be offering.
TBH I wasn't ever gonna be interested in getting a Neo but between the PS4 Spider-Man game and the Crash reboot I am heavily considering it.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
The beginning of this has a really good talk with Phil Spencer about all things Xbox, including the Scorpio and what they're actually aiming to do moving forward.
Scorpio's power is primarily intended for 4k and VR; and if you don't plan on utilizing either of those, an S will suit you perfectly fine. Also the S is probably going to be a cheaper product than Scorpio when that hits.
If anyone is curious, there's like a 45 minute-long interview that Phil Spencer did with Giant Bomb where he basically goes deep into thier hardware plans.
http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/giant-bomb-live-at-e3-2016-day-02/2300-11375/
Polygon did an interview with Phil Spencer regarding their announcement, and the three boxes... two relevant quotes:
Polygon
And, regardless of their messaging, Scorpio _is_ a gen 9 system. It just happens to have built-in backwards compatibility. And while that's great for pre-release buzz and transitional periods, once you're 2 years into a new cycle, it's just so much unneeded overhead baggage. It's also 12 to 18 months away. I'm certainly not going to start putting money aside for a system that doesn't even exist (yet) that has features that I cant use (yet). I'm more likely to upgrade to a new TV before I buy another console.