I have now tried Virtual Reality and it is amazing

[shponglefan]

Maybe it is a blessing, and people should not be wearing the VR headset for too long a period, due to complications of eye strain, headaches, going cross eyed  etc.

I've never had eye strain using the Vive, and that includes using it for up to 3 hours at a stretch.  Only time I ever had a headache was due to artificial motion trying to play Metroid Prime in VR.  Constant artificial rotation and switching between first and 3rd person started to make me dizzy and I had to quit after 10 or 15 minutes.

Other than that, VR has been quite mild as far as any side-effects go.  In fact, the biggest side effects I've noticed are sore muscles depending on the game.  VR can be a legitimate workout. 

[RandyT]

The CAD and Computing markets aren't significant enough to drive GPU development and still provide enough demand to keep production high and costs low.  There is a reason graphics cards used to cost $10k or more in that segment.

(ok, I'm ditching most of the quotes so I don't break the forum )

We really weren't talking about the effect high-end gamers have on the ability of consumers to afford solutions which were previously unreachable.  A huge chunk of the cost of those graphics cards was R&D, and those companies paid it because it made them money.  So rather than the graphics card companies needing to extract those costs from fewer units, they can be amortized over a larger user base.  These advancements were taking place, and were paid for, long before the advent of 3D gaming.  And virtually every physical product is simulated and designed digitally now.  You can't watch a movie without seeing some very high-end 3D work (even in traditional, non-animated film.)  A buddy of mine did IT at a large productivity software company (you've heard of them), and talked occasionally about the hardware they used in just his small branch.  $200,000 boxes, and they had multiples.  I think the professional market is much, much larger than you profess to know.

VR on phones isn't at it's critical marketing point yet.  Samsung wants to be established in that space for when it gets there.  It's coming.  What happens after that remains to be seen, but I predict that due to the lower cost of entry, it will be quite successful.  In a short time, I suspect that VR capabilities for phones will be as common as cameras are currently.  Which phone provides the best VR experience, will play heavily in the consumers decision on which to purchase.  Google is why Samsung is so heavy in the game.

The future of warfare is automation and robotics.  At some point, VR headsets will be as common as night vision goggles.

Yet no technology comes about without passing this dilemma.  You can always make short term profits on making a consumer product with existing technology, but VR is currently falling just short of the mark even with the latest tech, so it is going to take more development to make this take off. 

The visionaries sell the ideas, and there's a lot of "if we just add this, or fix that, then the world will be our oyster."  That will go on for some time, and that's where things are now.  If it bears fruit, or at least looks like it could, then more money is invested.  If not, shareholders and bean-counters slam the brakes.  No money, no development.

Most businesses that fail are small businesses.

By definition, ALL startups (<5 years old) are "small businesses".    The reasons they fail are almost too numerous to list.  And yes, even those with smart people behind them, with substantial investment, go down as well.  In those cases, it's often that the idea/product wasn't as marketable as was thought, or couldn't deliver what was promised, and the cost/time required to get it to the point that it would be, was not attractive to those investing in it.  Publicly traded companies crap out all of the time, and it took a while for them to even reach the point of being publicly traded.  If this wasn't happening, there would be no such thing as high-risk investments, nor overnight millionaires. 

Point being, large investment does not equate to a successful business.  As for the term, there's a reason why big companies never want to see a negative trend in their earnings, even for a few quarters.  Investors start selling, and their stock falls.  Falling stock prices erodes investor confidence and operating capital starts to dry up.  Again, no operating capital, no further development.

Rich people are rich, because their gains outweighed their losses.  Risk is risk.  Smart people do what they can to mitigate it to the extent possible, and try to make all the right choices.  But at the end of the day, investing in anything new and unproven, is a much larger risk than investing in something which has an established market and a proven record of return.  Investment companies look for the things they believe, through whatever market research they have available, will have the highest likelihood of a substantial return, while realizing that whatever they throw in is "at risk" (meaning, they could lose most if not all of what they invest). Few invest  stupidly and lose their money, and few become rich through luck.  But both do happen, and even with the best research, some things just don't work out in the end.  That's where diversification comes into play.

I can see where you might get the idea that a company with billions of dollars doesn't care about investing 100 million and losing it.  Companies like Google and Amazon seem to throw away millions on dumb ideas all the time.  But in each and every case, they weigh the risks and are prepared to take a hit if it fails.

Ok, now explain how this is any different from any other large investor?   Unless you are making the claim that some of them are "all in" and not ready to take that hit.

Yes, I am exaggerating, but let's be honest, 20 years ago the dream of a 5" display with over 8 million pixels and a wide color gamut and high dynamic range of brightness was the stuff of the most outrageous science fiction.  Yet I can hold one in my hand today

Here's the problem.  If VR/AR doesn't make it, there's virtually no other reason to keep pushing the screen size down and pixel density up.  4k is overkill for a handheld display, and it wouldn't even be that high now, were it not for the cell phone market, where, you know, more is always better.  And we all know that those who just had to have a 4k display will be complaining about refresh rates, battery life, or the size of the phone to house a proper battery. 

I don't know, a lot of what we are talking about is miniaturization, efficiency and power storage, and we are very close to physical limits of what can be done conventionally and safely on a number of these fronts.  The only good thing is that on the display side of things, there isn't much which relates solely to VR, so as advances occur organically over time in those fields of study, the results will be useful at a later date for VR.  But even with an unlimited budget, getting past some of these hurdles can take an amount of time which we probably can't even quantify at the moment.

[shponglefan]

Has anyone seen the TV series called black mirror?
Its a uk series but very good and raises lots of hypothetical questions but there was a few episodes which would scarily relate to this in terms of where this kind of tech could go one day:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playtest_(Black_Mirror)

Its worth a look for anyone interested :p

Oh yes, Black Mirror is a great series.  Although it can be a downer at times.  But anyone who likes sci-fi should check it out.

That episode in particular highlights the rather scary prospect of VR becoming indistinguishable from reality.  I keep seeing people claiming that until VR can perfectly mimic reality, they wouldn't want it.  But would you really want that?

Horror games in VR, for example, despite low-resolution imagery and slightly bulky headsets are still freaky as balls.  For stuff like that, I'm not sure I'd want VR to be that much more immersive.  It's nice to be able to just lift up the headset when things get too intense.

[RandyT]

Has anyone seen the TV series called black mirror?
Its a uk series but very good and raises lots of hypothetical questions but there was a few episodes which would scarily relate to this in terms of where this kind of tech could go one day:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playtest_(Black_Mirror)

Its worth a look for anyone interested :p

Oh yes, Black Mirror is a great series.  Although it can be a downer at times.  But anyone who likes sci-fi should check it out.

That episode in particular highlights the rather scary prospect of VR becoming indistinguishable from reality.  I keep seeing people claiming that until VR can perfectly mimic reality, they wouldn't want it.  But would you really want that?

Very smart series.  I usually binge watch it as soon as it hits Netflix.  It's pretty dark stuff, and shows how wrong things can (and probably will) go with only a natural progression of the technology we are using now.  Probably as much prophecy as fantasy.

[Titchgamer]

Yes its pretty dark but totally believable stuff.

Its a bit like Terminator really :p
Just easier to see where we can and will go wrong lol

Though I thought the episode with the murderer was a damn good idea!
Wont say anymore on that though incase someone has not seen it :p

[pbj]

First two original episodes were good, rest sucked.  Netflix reboot was terrible.  You people have bad taste.

[Titchgamer]

First two original episodes were good, rest sucked.  Netflix reboot was terrible.  You people have bad taste.

Think its just u PBJ :p

[RandyT]

Again, the important targets to hit for VR are sub 20ms latency from when you move your head to newly rendered accurately motion tracked stereo images hitting your eye, and being able to strobe those updated images at 90fps.

I'm gonna be so mad if I drop coin on one of these things and find out it's just a smoother, lower resolution version of what I have already experienced...

Again - when I say VR - I'm talking about performance good enough so your subconscious believes the 3d space is real.

Again - I'm gonna be so mad . . .

"VR" is getting used so interchangeably with motion controls, HMDs, stereoscopic imaging, etc. that I'm not even sure what someone means anymore with a statement like "Love my phone - it just can't do VR."  If it means "compared to all the other high-priced hardware with motion controls I own, the experience is severely lacking", then I wouldn't have issue with the statement.  But surely the basic execution of convincing, variable perspective stereoscopic imaging it can do.  I've seen it.  But if not, then I'm leaning toward the "never going to take off" crowd, as I currently see cell phones, and maybe the PSVR as the best hope of it gaining mass market acceptance.

Oh, cmon - now you're just being disingenuous - and you're smarter than that   Shades of the same color?  ( I at least said 'new' color  ) 
I guess I asked for it, it was a bad analogy.
Obviously the answer is... an even worse analogy! ...  Now explain your new color to someone who has always been blind.

  Sorry.  I was confused, given that there is no such thing as a "new color".  Not sure the other analogy is any more useful, given that color is what we humans call our perception of certain energy wavelengths through functional eyeballs.  Pretty sure the difference isn't that drastic.

You should really try some of the higher end experiences - until you have, you just won't know what you don't know.   
And VR is absolutely not for everyone.

I like the exculpatory bit at the end , but yes, the way you handled it sounds interesting, and I'd very much like to try the high end systems.  But it's probably not likely that I'll have the opportunity any time soon.  Frugality can be a curse sometimes.  But I have a PSVR coming now, if the ebay seller doesn't get mad that I got it for so cheap, and backs out.  I'm afraid that's the distance I'm willing to go on this, and if that doesn't cut it, then I'm out.

[shponglefan]

I currently see cell phones, and maybe the PSVR as the best hope of it gaining mass market acceptance.

Personally, I see neither of these as being a mass market breakthrough.  I think mass market will come from some hereto unknown device probably another 5 or 10 years down the line.  Possibly a fully self-contained device built from the ground up for VR.  Maybe when Apple releases iVR or something.

[RandyT]

Personally, I see neither of these as being a mass market breakthrough.  I think mass market will come from some hereto unknown device probably another 5 or 10 years down the line.  Possibly a fully self-contained device built from the ground up for VR.  Maybe when Apple releases iVR or something.

You may be right, but that device might just also be a phone.  There are already roads being paved in that direction, and millions of users to help fund development through constant device upgrades.  Perhaps the greatest value in this approach is the longer term phasing in of the technology, with incremental improvements in hardware and software along the way.  Giving users the opportunity to adapt to the use of VR, much as they did the smartphones themselves, may be what is required to get to the point where VR is similarly inextricable from their daily lives.

[Samson]

I'm gonna be so mad if I drop coin on one of these things and find out it's just a smoother, lower resolution version of what I have already experienced...

Honestly -  your best bet is probably to wait if money remotely plays a factor - even if its just the frugal gene. Don't buy anything without trying it first if you have any reservations at all.  The Vive and Rift don't do it for everyone, even with a top of the line PC.  The highest end stuff is expensive and still has issues, there aren't many AAA class experiences available yet, and the crappy experiences are pretty much what you fear - smoother versions of what you've experienced.  All this will change though if given some time.

"VR" is getting used so interchangeably with motion controls, HMDs, stereoscopic imaging, etc. that I'm not even sure what someone means anymore with a statement like "Love my phone - it just can't do VR."  If it means "compared to all the other high-priced hardware with motion controls I own, the experience is severely lacking", then I wouldn't have issue with the statement.  But surely the basic execution of convincing, variable perspective stereoscopic imaging it can do.  I've seen it.

Yeah, people throw the term VR around a lot.  There's another term you'll hear a lot as well - presence, which is often vaguely defined as something like 'believing you are somewhere else'.   The issue seems to be that everyone has a different threshold for what convinces their lizard brain that a space is valid.  When it does happen, it's a 'holy moly' kind of thing, it's definitely not just smoother stereoscopy.   It's also difficult to quantify, and it's a pretty potent experience that my phone can't produce.  Although it can do 'variable perspective stereoscopic imaging' .

But if not, then I'm leaning toward the "never going to take off" crowd, as I currently see cell phones, and maybe the PSVR as the best hope of it gaining mass market acceptance.

I don't think VR is going to die, not by any stretch, but it's going to be a slower burn than some people seem to imagine.  Most people wont be buying new PCs to support this - sadly it seems the PC's heyday is winding down.  I think more powerful consoles and more powerful mobile processing will eventually make it mainstream, but the horsepower isn't there yet on those platforms.  ( The PS4 pro is better, and it will be really interesting to see what microsoft does with scorpio - they've pretty much promised some form of VR.)  Until then it's going to be the early adopter/enthusiast crowd. 

We'll also start to see commercial applications become more commonplace before mainstream adoption - in the not too distant future people aren't going to be driving around visiting a bunch of houses before buying one, the grunt work will be virtual.

I like the exculpatory bit at the end

Always good to leave a little wiggle room
Seriously though, there are some issues with current VR that prevent it from being suitable for everyone - motion sickness for example.

And I'd very much like to try the high end systems.  But it's probably not likely that I'll have the opportunity any time soon.  Frugality can be a curse sometimes.

If you find yourself passing down the I95 corridor in the mid atlantic region anytime soon,  post a message and I'll see if I can arrange a demo.

But I have a PSVR coming now, if the ebay seller doesn't get mad that I got it for so cheap, and backs out.  I'm afraid that's the distance I'm willing to go on this, and if that doesn't cut it, then I'm out.

I really want to comment about this, but don't want to bias your opinion before you try it.  Did you have to buy a console and headset, or just the headset?



( And in case anyone's curious about the new guy, I've actually been reading the forums for a long time.  Long enough that I forgot the email address and password for my original account Koz319 - not that I ever posted often. )

[Titchgamer]

Well Randy as I said previously I love my PSVR, its allot of fun!
Dont expect it to make you feel like its real, It wont the GFX are just not that advanced yet.

But it works really well and its lots of fun. At least the games that I have played thus far are.
If you wear glasses though its worth investing a few quid on the lens protectors that stick on via ebay.
Mine are fine but I have heard of people scratching their lenses with specs.

[ChadTower]

Gaming center by my house just picked up Resident Evil 7, Until Dawn:  Rush of Blood, and Farpoint.  Now I get to see what the PS VR can really do.  So stoked.   

[fallacy]

I'm gonna be so mad if I drop coin on one of these things and find out it's just a smoother, lower resolution version of what I have already experienced...

I would not buy a VR headset if I were you; you have to have some interest in the idea of the product to begin with. If everyone says they enjoy riding a bike around in the summer but you think riding a bike is stupid and will never use it, no point in going out and buying a $1000 bike. Maybe borrow a friends bike for a day and see if it something you want to do again.

[shponglefan]

So this just got posted.  Sounds like all Payday 2 content is coming to VR with asymmetric gameplay with non-VR players.  Exciting!



More here: https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/10/15614488/payday-2-vr-mode-free

[pbj]

Looks interesting.  Shame we always go for the murder simulators.

[shponglefan]

Looks interesting.  Shame we always go for the murder simulators.

There's always this as an alternative 

[RandyT]

I'm gonna be so mad if I drop coin on one of these things and find out it's just a smoother, lower resolution version of what I have already experienced...

I would not buy a VR headset if I were you; you have to have some interest in the idea of the product to begin with. If everyone says they enjoy riding a bike around in the summer but you think riding a bike is stupid and will never use it, no point in going out and buying a $1000 bike. Maybe borrow a friends bike for a day and see if it something you want to do again.

That was a tongue-in-cheek statement, for those who didn't catch it.

I do a have some interest in it, albeit very limited.  I could care less about looking in a mirror and saying "I'm Batman" in my best guttural voice, while my virtual hands are twitching like some poor unfortunate with a mild neurological impairment.    But I do have a racing rig, and am intrigued by the possibilities for using it with that.  No VR controls necessary, and drivers wear helmets, so it seems like a fit.  3D space shooting / flying games, or pretty much any games where the player is cockpit-bound sound like a good use (for me) as well.  I'll probably try out pinball too, because it's pinball . 

Outside of that, I'll have to see.  If I have to live with stripped down graphics, the hook of the other stuff is going to need to be pretty strong.

Honestly -  your best bet is probably to wait if money remotely plays a factor - even if its just the frugal gene.

. . .

I really want to comment about this, but don't want to bias your opinion before you try it.  Did you have to buy a console and headset, or just the headset?

I appreciate the invitation, but I don't get down that way .  Maybe they will bring back the box-store demos at some point.

The "gene" is definitely the issue.  There has to be a really good reason for me to spend more than I need to, and I just couldn't find it in VR at the moment.

I just needed the headset and move controllers (so I could at least get a sample of that kind of thing).  I already have a couple of PS4's, so cost of entry on a used unit was about in line with what my curiosity would force me to spend.  Not that anyone cares, but I'll post my thoughts when I play with it for bit (if it ever shows up, that is.)

[fallacy]

There's always this as an alternative 


VR Kanojo   

I just downloaded the demo, probably make a whole dating sim game from this. They must have made it in the Unreal Engine, seems like every VR game that comes from Unreal Engine has an Anti-aliasing bug in VR, Unity games always look fine.

[dkersten]

The CAD and Computing markets aren't significant enough to drive GPU development and still provide enough demand to keep production high and costs low.  There is a reason graphics cards used to cost $10k or more in that segment.

A huge chunk of the cost of those graphics cards was R&D, and those companies paid it because it made them money.

I disagree, I think most of the cost was in manufacturing nearly one off products.  They were making thousands of GL cards back then, but it takes making hundreds of thousands of them to make it consumer level cheap and retain that level of technology, let alone advancing that technology.

These advancements were taking place, and were paid for, long before the advent of 3D gaming.

Again, I disagree, the pace nVidia set starting with the Riva128 in developing GPU technology was unprecedented before they came into the picture.  Within 3 generations, they had a $300 card that rivaled the rendering power of a $10k professional card, with only the driver technology missing to make it a direct replacement for professional applications.  If the CAD and CGI industries were as strong as you say, then this would have been going on BEFORE the demand from the consumer gaming segment. 

And virtually every physical product is simulated and designed digitally now.  You can't watch a movie without seeing some very high-end 3D work (even in traditional, non-animated film.)  A buddy of mine did IT at a large productivity software company (you've heard of them), and talked occasionally about the hardware they used in just his small branch.  $200,000 boxes, and they had multiples.  I think the professional market is much, much larger than you profess to know.

I think you are severely overestimating the actual volume of GPUs the old market was demanding.  Volume is what drastically alters consumer availability of a product.  A few big CGI companies spending millions on one-off technology is not equal to tens of millions of consumers looking for $300-700 products.  It wasn't like there were hundreds of these companies out there doing outsourced CGI rendering for Hollywood.  There were a few big ones, a small handful of small ones, and maybe a few thousand companies doing CAD work with 3D modeling that required this kind of hardware.   None of them were looking to upgrade annually, and none of them were doing the kind of volume that leads to evolving manufacturing techniques.

Here is a similar case to what you are talking about - a market segment where there are thousands of companies needing technology and spending HUGE dollars.  High volume SSD Drives.  About 5 years ago I was buying a big server, and HP had a PCIe SSD card that was 1TB.  The PCIe interface meant it was faster than any tech out at the time, and 1tb in a single solid state hard drive was unheard of.  But it cost $35,000.  Today you can get a 1TB SSD with a similar speed interface for about $400.  So yes, the tech was there to do it several years ago, but the comparison is apples to oranges.  The question was never whether a $10,000 GPU was high tech at the time, but rather if the technology was there to produce that $10,000 GPU for $300.  It wasn't.  And it never would have been without the demand from the consumer gaming market.  It takes being able to manufacture hundreds of thousands of units combined with the R&D to pack more and more into less and less of a package.  That never would have happened with GPU's without consumer demand, and it never would have happened to SSD's without consumer demand.  At least not in the time frame it happened in. 

VR on phones isn't at it's critical marketing point yet.  Samsung wants to be established in that space for when it gets there.  It's coming.  What happens after that remains to be seen, but I predict that due to the lower cost of entry, it will be quite successful.  In a short time, I suspect that VR capabilities for phones will be as common as cameras are currently.  Which phone provides the best VR experience, will play heavily in the consumers decision on which to purchase.  Google is why Samsung is so heavy in the game.

I think that prediction is solid, but then you could have said the same about 3D in televisions.  It is an easy jump for either in terms of relating hardware to a new feature, yet the quality leaves the consumer desiring much more than they can deliver, and that was certainly a factor in the demise of 3D in the home market.

Most businesses that fail are small businesses.

By definition, ALL startups (<5 years old) are "small businesses". 

Again, splitting hairs.  MOST small businesses that start are little operations, usually started by people with no knowledge of business.  It would not be a 90/10 rule if every business that opened the doors was started by someone who knew how to run a business and had the capital to make it successful.  Sure, even really good business ideas implemented by really smart business people fail, but not at the rate of the overall trend.  Open a local business newspaper and see how many business licenses are applied for each month.  It is staggering.  Most of those don't last a few months.

If this wasn't happening, there would be no such thing as high-risk investments, nor overnight millionaires. 

Overnight millionaires are almost always also overnight bankrupt millionaires.  It is exceedingly rare that someone actually becomes successful overnight.  it is even more rare that they cash out on it.  And it is even more rare than those two that they don't immediately reinvest it and usually lose it.  You hear about it a lot because it makes for good stories.  If you know someone who makes a lot of money by taking huge risks that pay off big, start betting against them.  If they go in big on a tech stock, short that stock.  Chances are you will become the next overnight millionaire, because it is only a matter of time before they lose big.  People like that don't last.

It's funny how terms like "high risk" are perceived.  I recently evaluated a multinational software company for financial viability, and they were given the worst possible rating for risk of bankruptcy.  The chance was .04%.  Not 4%, .04%.  That is "high risk". 

Point being, large investment does not equate to a successful business.

But my point was that if you follow large investment, you have a greater chance of being right than if you follow an arcade enthusiast who thinks it will fail because he wouldn't buy it at that price point.  That's all I'm saying.  When it comes to whether or not VR will be successful, I trust someone who is paid really well to make decisions like that for people who are usually very successful over any member here.  You can look at the exceptions all day long and point and say "See, you are wrong".  The fact is, MOST OF THE TIME, big companies get it right, which is why they are big companies.  So if you were betting YOUR money, would you bet on a big company or an arcade enthusiast?

Yes, I am exaggerating, but let's be honest, 20 years ago the dream of a 5" display with over 8 million pixels and a wide color gamut and high dynamic range of brightness was the stuff of the most outrageous science fiction.  Yet I can hold one in my hand today

Here's the problem.  If VR/AR doesn't make it, there's virtually no other reason to keep pushing the screen size down and pixel density up.  4k is overkill for a handheld display, and it wouldn't even be that high now, were it not for the cell phone market, where, you know, more is always better.  And we all know that those who just had to have a 4k display will be complaining about refresh rates, battery life, or the size of the phone to house a proper battery. 

I don't know, a lot of what we are talking about is miniaturization, efficiency and power storage, and we are very close to physical limits of what can be done conventionally and safely on a number of these fronts.  The only good thing is that on the display side of things, there isn't much which relates solely to VR, so as advances occur organically over time in those fields of study, the results will be useful at a later date for VR.  But even with an unlimited budget, getting past some of these hurdles can take an amount of time which we probably can't even quantify at the moment.

As a species, we could have stopped at fire and the wheel and still been the dominant species on this planet.  But where's the fun in that?  I want to have my smartphone made so small and so high tech that it is implanted inside me with the displays grown into my retinas.  I want a supercomputer implanted in my head, with displays in my eyeballs and the ability to see, hear, feel, smell, and in general, experience in detail anything I want to experience, even if it isn't real.   I WANT to see landscapes that don't exist.  I WANT to drive cars I can't afford on a race track that doesn't exist, racing against other drivers who are actually on other continents.  I WANT to be able to stand in my living room, or yard, or even on a sidewalk and start a game where I am fighting off wave after wave of zombies or space aliens.  I WANT altered reality technology so that when I look around, all the women look skinny and beautiful, not fat and wearing pajamas at WalMart.  THAT is why they keep making this stuff smaller and smaller and more and more powerful, because they know that every person out there will pay to have it.

And if you ask me, VR isn't the future.  Convergence is the future.  I envision a day when technology comes together and turns everything into seamless hardware.  Your phone is also your VR, a controller for your car, your TV when you are home, and your computer when you get to work.  One device to rule them all.

[Titchgamer]

Do you really want that Dkersten?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entire_History_of_You

Another black mirror plug lol

[RandyT]

. . .

Ok, it seems we agree on just about nothing.  The opinions of "arcade enthusiasts",whom you so casually write off, are also opinions of people who run the gamut of skills and occupations and some have been hard-core tech enthusiasts since the dawn of the era.  I publicly predicted the failure and eventual abandonment of 3DTV.  Not because I couldn't afford it, but because I worked in a glasses-free 3D display tech startup, and over a 7 year period, aside from developing manufacturing processes and general IT, I performed research on it's marketability.  What  I witnessed first-hand was the dismissal of 3D display tech in general by consumers as a "novelty", and of no appreciable practical value.  The company no longer exists, because top-tier management did not take my advice to diversify, choosing rather to put all of it's eggs in a basket with no bottom.  The 30,000 shares of stock I owned in that company became worthless as a result.   I'd say that the TV industry should have solicited my opinion, but 3DTV was never based on consumer demand.  It was forced by the TV and entertainment industries as a way to prop up faltering sales figures, and because they thought they could convince the public it was something they couldn't live without.  The "Big Boys" dropped  the ball on that one, wouldn't you say?

A lot of folks here are also old enough to have lived through the period of time in question, and know a bit about the state of the technology market in those days.  None of the bases for much of the tech we use today, ever had home users in mind when it was invented.  Focusing on cost distribution, rather than the fact that in virtually every case, the home user gets "hand me down" tech funded primarily through purchases from government, research and professional entities, takes this discussion nowhere.  If you think gaming is what is driving graphics card technology, just look here.  A box full of Tesla cards was the hardware I was referring to earlier.  Maybe someday we'll get to play with some of that tech as well.

As for the Riva128, there were already cards on the market in that sector which professional applications had started to support, and the Riva128 was not one of them.  Nvidia had new technology and was going after 3dFX, who also just happened to be the company gaining that support.  The era of the $10,000 workstation graphics card was already coming to an end, because technology had marched on, as it does, and the graphic card companies could amortize the costs over a larger user base.  But the professional market always has higher demands, both in performance and in the drivers, than the consumer market. What's more is that they are willing and able to pay for them.  What you seem to overlook is that technology added to the company's IP portfolio, even as a result of an insanely expensive "one-off", still benefits the lower tiers when it eventually gets incorporated into those offerings.  This allows the card companies to remain technologically competitive, thereby ensuring the continuation of high revenue streams.

I think the thing we disagree on is the definition of "drive". I am of the opinion that tech is what drives the market, while you seem to be asserting that it is economies of scale.   In reality, it is probably both to varying degrees, depending on the market in question.

I don't know about the "Bankruptcy" version of "high-risk", but with investments, the chance of losing your back-side is more than .04%

Oh, and before I die, I want the flying cars I was promised before I was born, but I don't see that happening either   My assumption as to your age would sadly mean that you probably won't get to experience most of those things on your list either.  Maybe we should first put in the effort to cure cancer and old age, before worrying about putting a display in your eyeball (which is extraneous, btw, if you already have a computer in your head )

[ChadTower]

Is there a VR version of this thread?  2D isn't doing it for me anymore.

[yotsuya]

Is there a VR version of this thread?  2D isn't doing it for me anymore.

There is, but unless you're running it on a $10,000 dedicated PC, don't even get out of bed otherwise.

[Titchgamer]

Talking of investments I just heard about this on the Radio:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/05/12/softbank-leads-500-million-investment-into-uk-virtual-reality-start-up.html

[RandyT]

Talking of investments I just heard about this on the Radio:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/05/12/softbank-leads-500-million-investment-into-uk-virtual-reality-start-up.html

I hate to say it, but I get the uneasy feeling that the company's product has very little to do with "VR", and only brings that into the picture to take advantage of the hype.  Don't get me wrong.  The technology they are talking about seems very interesting, and the profit model (repository of modeled behaviors for their simulation "sandbox") seems quite viable.  But in all honesty, VR could vanish and the technology would still be useful.  It's a back-end distributed server operating system focused on simulation, which really wouldn't need to do much different, or have much change in it's value, even if navigated through a conventional 2D interface.  "VR" in the context of this technology is equivalent to "VR" in the context of a Call of Duty map.  Just much more complex where interactivity of it's elements are concerned.  The "permanence" factor they talk about is bit off-putting as well.  Who would play a game if when you died, you were actually dead to that world, forever?  All the friends you made, and interacted with in that space would be gone forever (again, in that space.)  It's the application version of removing the save button from your file menu, and the system saving every change you made, even if it was for the worse, while giving access to your work to those with no vested interest in it.  To me, that aspect is a recipe for mayhem, and while it's reflective of reality, it's one of the worst aspects of it . . . unless you've always dreamed of being a virtual hobo / crime victim .
 

[dkersten]

Ok, it seems we agree on just about nothing.

I disagree with this.. lol

The opinions of "arcade enthusiasts",whom you so casually write off, are also opinions of people who run the gamut of skills and occupations and some have been hard-core tech enthusiasts since the dawn of the era.

Sorry, it's a whole new world out there.  What drove US to spend money in our teens and as young adults is not what drives the current generation.  I don't write off the opinions of people here, I just see a distinct line, one where those who feel it is not worth a $2k investment (if you don't already have a PC) are convinced it will fail simply because they wouldn't buy it as it is right now, and where those who DID buy into it now as enthusiasts are convinced this is the best thing since sliced bread.  Regardless of who is right or wrong, would YOU invest your money based on the opinions in this thread?  I am betting the answer is no.  For me, if I were to bet on this industry, which I am not, I would side with those people who are already throwing money at it.  I think they did their research, and it probably didn't include an off topic arcade control forum.

That being said, I do believe that the people here, whether I agree with their opinions or not, are a fair representation of the middle age segment of gamers.  But any gamer also knows that gamers are very particular about the genre they play in.  A hardcore PC FPS gamer isn't going to agree with a hardcore console FPS gamer on much, even though they may be playing the same game.  With that in mind, think of how much opinions diverge between a hardcore VR gamer and a hardcore classic arcade gamer.  Night and Day differences.  As a whole, we represent a multibillion dollar industry that is bigger than Hollywood, but as individuals we represent niches that are usually on polar opposites of the spectrum.

  I publicly predicted the failure and eventual abandonment of 3DTV.  Not because I couldn't afford it, but because I worked in a glasses-free 3D display tech startup, and over a 7 year period, aside from developing manufacturing processes and general IT, I performed research on it's marketability.  What  I witnessed first-hand was the dismissal of 3D display tech in general by consumers as a "novelty", and of no appreciable practical value.  The company no longer exists, because top-tier management did not take my advice to diversify, choosing rather to put all of it's eggs in a basket with no bottom.  The 30,000 shares of stock I owned in that company became worthless as a result.   I'd say that the TV industry should have solicited my opinion, but 3DTV was never based on consumer demand.  It was forced by the TV and entertainment industries as a way to prop up faltering sales figures, and because they thought they could convince the public it was something they couldn't live without.  The "Big Boys" dropped  the ball on that one, wouldn't you say?

I have hated 3dtv since the day it was introduced.  In fact, I played Descent with shutter glasses the day it became available, and while it had a cool factor, I immediately dismissed it as a novelty.  I loved Descent as a game, but had no desire to play it with shutter glasses.  But I also never really cared for 3D in movies either.  My eyes are sensitive to that, and while the latest iterations on IMAX are pretty astounding if the movie is done right, I still prefer to see movies in 2D.

In essense, I agree 100% with what you are saying about 3dtv here.  (see, we don't disagree on everything).  But IMHO, 3DTV is to VR what a Barbie Corvette is to a Ferrari.  Sure, they both have 4 wheels and move when you press a pedal, but that is where the similarities end.  I tried VR based on what I read in the first page of this thread, and as a hardcore PC gamer since 1984, I was blown away and see it as the future of PC gaming.

BTW, I am also a home theater enthusiast and am building a house around a theater space where I will dump close to $100k into the theater by the time all is said and done.  Yet I will not even consider 3dtv as a part of that theater.  I am about as enthusiastic about display technology as it gets, and the best possible target demographic for that technology, yet I will never sink a penny into it.  How could someone who is so adamantly against 3dtv love VR?  Very Simple - Because they are two completely different things.

I think the thing we disagree on is the definition of "drive". I am of the opinion that tech is what drives the market, while you seem to be asserting that it is economies of scale.   In reality, it is probably both to varying degrees, depending on the market in question.

I agree with this.  We definitely disagree here.  There is a lot of really cool tech out there that will never reach market because nobody will buy it.  Sure, some of it will get developed for very specific uses, but it will always remain outside the hands of consumers, and when it comes down to it, the entire argument on this thread is revolving around whether VR will make it as a consumer product.  The key to this is getting the cost down so that GOOD VR is affordable to people who are on the fence about it, and that means not only inventing the tech that will get it there, but then also figuring out how to mass produce it to keep the cost down.

Oh, and before I die, I want the flying cars I was promised before I was born, but I don't see that happening either   My assumption as to your age would sadly mean that you probably won't get to experience most of those things on your list either.  Maybe we should first put in the effort to cure cancer and old age, before worrying about putting a display in your eyeball (which is extraneous, btw, if you already have a computer in your head )

You don't make the leap to neural interfaces without a stepping stone that involves more simplified cybernetics, lol...

I am not writing off flying cars quite yet.  The biggest hangup there is safety, and that is a nasty argument that could turn political in a hurry, but keep in mind, autonomous cars have come a long way, and that kind of tech would be fairly easy to translate into something that doesn't have to watch for pedestrians or road construction.  The sky is a good medium for that, but this is a major chicken and egg scenario.  However, consider an alternative that may be closer than flying cars that fly themselves -


You may see the future as more of the same disappointment we experienced in the first decade of 2000, but I see it as very bright, at least in terms of technology.  We have rockets that can land themselves under power on a platform moving around on water.  FRIKKIN ROCKETS MAN!  We have cars driving themselves around, robot skeletons for paraplegics to walk again, and even neural interfaces that actually work and can control a robotic arm!  You can buy a pair of sunglasses that fixes colorblindness!  If you look beyond what you can buy at Costco, you find all kinds of stuff that in the 80's were the subject of the most fantastical science fiction.  If we don't destroy our economy with socialism or destroy our planet with CO2 first, you may very well get your flying car.

[pbj]

I played Descent with two mirrors hot glued to a pair of sunglasses with the lenses taken out.  It actually worked....

[fallacy]

I played Descent with two mirrors hot glued to a pair of sunglasses with the lenses taken out.  It actually worked....

Remember doing that with Heretic .

[CoryBee]

I have the HTC Vive since it came out, I loved playing it for hours. I still put it on every now and then to try out new games but my current situation does not afford me much space to play in. In California I played it a lot as I had a dedicated room for it and my gaming PC setup.

I could go on about how an amazing experience it was, cause it really is, but I am waiting to play it again until I move into a much bigger house or better games come out for the room size I am working with.

Mind you, I get motion sickness easy so without big space to move freely in I have to use the artificial movements which make me sick quick.

God that bow and arrow game in the Valve demo is so much fun though. I wish they turned that into a full blown game with levels and more enemies. I think I played that game for over an hour straight and the headset itself for 5 hours the day I got it.

[Titchgamer]

I have the HTC Vive since it came out, I loved playing it for hours. I still put it on every now and then to try out new games but my current situation does not afford me much space to play in. In California I played it a lot as I had a dedicated room for it and my gaming PC setup.

I could go on about how an amazing experience it was, cause it really is, but I am waiting to play it again until I move into a much bigger house or better games come out for the room size I am working with.

Mind you, I get motion sickness easy so without big space to move freely in I have to use the artificial movements which make me sick quick.

God that bow and arrow game in the Valve demo is so much fun though. I wish they turned that into a full blown game with levels and more enemies. I think I played that game for over an hour straight and the headset itself for 5 hours the day I got it.

Just a thought have you tried Ginger for the sickness?

Stupid as it sounds a few Ginger biscuits before playing helped me feel better

[CoryBee]

I had Ginger chews and ginger drinks on the ready wen it came

THing that helps the most I have found is Dramamine, motion sickness stuff you can get at walgreens/cvs.

[ChadTower]

On saturday I spent about an hour with Resident Evil 7 VR.  Last RE game I put real time into was RE4 and the first hour does feel a lot like that.  It's using the controller, not the Move controller, and the resolution is lower than the first party VR apps.  That said, it's fully immmersive.  I'm looking forward to more time with it.  The jump scares so far are too telegraphed but that's not because of the VR.  That's just the game design.

[fallacy]

I can't believe Resident Evil 7 is on steam but does not support Vive or Rift. Ya they can make it exclusive to the Playstation but if not why just take out VR support... like I am not going to buy a Playstation and a Playstation VR just for this game, no one would so what the actual fu#k is the point.

[RandyT]

I can't believe Resident Evil 7 is on steam but does not support Vive or Rift. Ya they can make it exclusive to the Playstation but if not why just take out VR support... like I am not going to buy a Playstation and a Playstation VR just for this game, no one would so what the actual fu#k is the point.

My guess is that Sony paid big money for the VR exclusive, at least for now, to help move the headsets.  There have been over 50 million PS4s sold, so that's an awful lot of potential customers who don't need to purchase that piece of the equation.

I don't have the headset yet, but it is moving through the mail now.  I already bought Battlezone, for less than half of the list price, during the last flash sale.  Seemed like a good first title for me.

[ChadTower]

Also probably why it doesn't require the Move controllers.  There is a lot of finding objects and using the sticks to rotate and examine them.  That would be a perfect application for the Move controllers and VR controls.

[RandyT]

Also probably why it doesn't require the Move controllers.  There is a lot of finding objects and using the sticks to rotate and examine them.  That would be a perfect application for the Move controllers and VR controls.

I wonder if this is some strategy by Sony to get headsets in the hands of players, for incremental upgrades down the road.  Kind of a hardware "DLC" marketing strategy, if you will.  The Move controllers are very dated, but they have the benefit of current existence.  It wouldn't surprise me if Sony already has better controllers on a drawing board somewhere, waiting to see how the adoption rate of the headset goes.     

[ChadTower]

They do fit into the camera scheme well.  I've had issues with them but it's more about the batteries than the controls themselves.  When the batteries get weak they reset themselves a lot.

[Titchgamer]

They have already made a new gun controller thats releasing with farpoint so they are working on it.

[ChadTower]

The Move controllers work decently as a gun.  I don't see how it would work other than being shaped like a gun with a Move knob on it.