Support NeoGAF

[Kouriozan]

There is still so much improvement to be made with VR in general, but can't wait for the first CV release of OR.

 

[Betta Lines]

A similar experience could be achieved by watching a 360 degrees webcam on your monitor or TV screen, you can look around, hear the sounds etc. but you don't have to strap a screen to your face. Sure it's less immersive, however you still receive all the same information. Also other people can watch with you, you can look at that house with your SO or family and discuss it, you can decide whether you both like Paris together instead of taking turns.

I'm not saying it isn't cool, it's not revolutionary though.

For the single requirement of 'deciding whether you like Paris', looking at a surround image in VR perhaps isn't the greatest use of the technology. You can 'decide whether you like Paris' from looking at a postcard. But why are we talking about this one application?

A new graphics card, maybe a better next gen investment for me then either of the 2 consoles? Its certainly a very tough choice for gamers on a limited budget who want the best option.

The best VR experience will be on PC, but you shouldn't invest in an upgrade yet (unless you're buying a DK2). If you are on a very tight budget, you may not be able to afford the hardware required to run CV1, so PS4 + Morpheus may be the better option. Too early to say really.

Isn't the problem with the rift that you need a pretty crazy high end setup to have every game run at 120+fps?

90fps is likely, and yes, you'll need quite a powerful PC. But the costs involved will naturally decrease over time. By the time CV1 launches, there should be several mid-to-high end graphics cards that will meet the requirements.

 

[R_Deckard]

I never said it was solely about specs. It being tethered to PC gaming is just never going to allow it hitting that mainstream regardless.

The average household is losing interest in big bulky desktop PC's at an insane rate over the last few years, at least, that is my experience.

This is very true, Desktop sales are falling so fast there is pretty much no real market. With business going Tablet/Laptop or Hybrid and then thin Client for users and Virtualization being pretty much all of any new Server/Infrastructure now.

VR has had a run before (and many will jump on me as the tech was not ready etc which is true but) as per 3D and the second coming making it far easier to view 3D with no additional equipment required it still failed massively and limped out like a damp squib.

Morpheus has the chance to be a more mainstream success but I still see that has a Unique feature that will still be used like OR for the hardcore and some "fun" games. Like the Wii it will be great and a buzz but I never see it becoming a replacement to games as we see now or at least not within the next 10 years.

 

[iJudged]

Welp, time to start building a beast rig, I will name him Roy.

 

[Lernaean]

It is a technological leap perhaps bigger than the advent of color television and cinema. By having a separate image for each eye, we're simulating another facet of our vision as it appears to us, which would be depth perception. Is it perhaps this fundamental difference that you're missing?

It's not technologically revolutionary just because it is what you said it is, a device displaying an image for each eye.
Until there is viable holographic projection, there won't really be 'VR', just expensive View-Masters.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Exciting. But this means I now need a desktop as no way will my laptop cut it.

 

[RayMaker]

For the single requirement of 'deciding whether you like Paris', looking at a surround image in VR perhaps isn't the greatest use of the technology. You can 'decide whether you like Paris' from looking at a postcard. But why are we talking about this one application?


The best VR experience will be on PC, but you shouldn't invest in an upgrade yet (unless you're buying a DK2). If you are on a very tight budget, you may not be able to afford the hardware required to run CV1, so PS4 + Morpheus may be the better option. Too early to say really.


90fps is likely, and yes, you'll need quite a powerful PC. But the costs involved will naturally decrease over time. By the time CV1 launches, there should be several mid-to-high end graphics cards that will meet the requirements.

Well I've got a i7 920

If I got something like a gtx780 wouldent that be good enough for a decent occulus experience?

 

[Majukun]

We already knew it's going to be released in 2015,so no big news

 

[jem0208]

It is not the same. Not by a mile.

It is very hard to describe just how incredible and 'new' it is to see something in VR. We are obviously not doing a good enough job explaining it to you, but all I can say is that you can see something a thousand times on a flat display and then when you see it in VR, it will almost be like seeing it for the first time. It demonstrates just how limited and poor 2D displays are for getting across that same information. It seems adequate when that's all you know and what you're used to, but VR changes this.

I'm not saying it's the same experience, and neither am I saying that VR won't be an amazing experience. I just don't think it's going to revolutionize how we interact with our media in such a profound way. I don't think it will become something that almost every household has like a TV or smartphone.

It is a technological leap perhaps bigger than the advent of color television and cinema. By having a separate image for each eye, we're simulating another facet of our vision as it appears to us, which would be depth perception. Is it perhaps this fundamental difference that you're missing?

What? I completely disagree with this. Colour TV is a vastly greater leap than depth perception. We've had depth perception in the form of 3D for years.

For the single requirement of 'deciding whether you like Paris', looking at a surround image in VR perhaps isn't the greatest use of the technology. You can 'decide whether you like Paris' from looking at a postcard. But why are we talking about this one application?

Because that's the one someone brought up.

 

[jellies_two]

segways were going go change the world too, but we had to change too much to use them.

there is a reason mobile is huge: you can sneak it into every corner of your busy life.

As a family dad VR is impossible! no approval possible for shutting myself off from mum and the kids. what am I going to do? buy four of them with four uber pcs? christ. If i buy it it will be a dorky gadget to show to mates for 10 minutes peace at a home bbq, and they will all say "wow thats cool but I cannot justify owning one". Even at 300 bucks. Like a flight stick or a motion chair.

For pale gamer shut-ins, twitch broadcasters without a face or tits for a camera, college drop outs or 15 year olds failing high school it will be HUGE, no doubt about it. Will it be commercially proftable though? profitable enough for the delicious high quality made for VR games etc? i can forsee that is a problem. It might be a vanity thing for facebook for a long time. An aura gadget.

It demands total commitment from the user, more so than 3d movies. Yeah it delivers more, but as much the total experience of playing couch co-op with my kids? If you have the luxury of gaming uninterrupted alone in a room for hours already, in cosplay, without anyone hassling you, then sure. Buy the first working VR kit you can why not it isnt like you are using your peripheral vision anyway....

 

[asker]

It's not technologically revolutionary just because it is what you said it is, a device displaying an image for each eye.
Until there is viable holographic projection, there won't really be 'VR', just expensive View-Masters.

Would you agree that your vision is basically just the same image from two different angles? And that all the information that your brain can tell you about scale, depth etc. it conclude from these two images? If we can essentially replace these two images transparently with something else, we can then basically present the brain with any vision imaginable. Even your highly regarded holographic projection. How is this not revolutionary?

What? I completely disagree with this. Colour TV is a vastly greater leap than depth perception. We've had depth perception in the form of 3D for years.

You cannot compare VR to 3D cinema, 3D TVs or View-Masters. In the case of VR, your entire visual perception of the world is replaced by whatever else you wish. It displays a separate image for each eye making it appear 3D the same way your eyes give you a three dimensional sensation "in real life". It's the closest you can get without hooking up electrodes to your brain and blasting it with electrical impulses to trick it into seeing something else.

 

[Betta Lines]

Well I've got a i7 920

If I got something like a gtx780 wouldent that be good enough for a decent occulus experience?

For the DK2 (1080, 75Hz), it would be alright. The CV1 (estimated at least 1440, 90Hz) is quite a step up. You might be able to get away with a GPU upgrade nearer the time, but that CPU will be holding it back.

 

[Klyka]

90fps is likely, and yes, you'll need quite a powerful PC. But the costs involved will naturally decrease over time. By the time CV1 launches, there should be several mid-to-high end graphics cards that will meet the requirements.

I've got a 970 and I'm pretty sure I won't be able to run most games in 1440p at 90+fps that easily. At least not without turning down graphics which kinda ruins the whole VR immersion.

 

[Ark]

I can't wait to use CV1 with iRacing. Yes please.

 

[revolverjgw]

Maybe it's a USA thing, but here no one knows Oculus outside the typical stand on a VG congress

That's not surprising. It's not even a commercial product yet, doesn't even have a release date. No real marketing or advertising campaign. No software for it. Facebook didn't buy them for 2 billion just to let it fade into obscurity, so expect to hear about it when it's actually a thing.

 

[Lernaean]

Would you agree that your vision is basically just the same image from two different angles? And that all the information that your brain can tell you about scale, depth etc. it conclude from these two images? If we can essentially replace these two images transparently with something else, we can then basically present the brain with any vision imaginable. Even your highly regarded holographic projection. How is this not revolutionary?

Because it's the principle of faking 3D for decades now, as i said, an expensive View-Master.
OR's technological step is that now, we are at a point that a powerful PC (and not OR by itself) can stream to you, through OR, a game at a high framerate. It's just a performance evolution, not a conceptual one.
The only revolutionary thing in VR will be when we have working holographic projection, as i said before. Meaning projecting an image including the depth, through a hardware device, without the need of any wearable peripheral.

 

[Majukun]

What will be the supposed requirements for the retail version?

 

[hohoXD123]

Smartphones and tablets are relatively cheap. VR isn't. Smartphones and tablets don't require you to wear a cumbersome headset that makes you blind to all else. Smartphones and tablets are used in every moment of your life, and that's very unlikely to apply to VR as well.

So I'm sorry, but the comparison really doesn't even get close to fit.



You forgot the very simple fact that a VR headset does absolutely nothing, zero, nada, by itself.

Several things to address here:

Smartphones and tablets are relatively cheap. VR isn't.

An iPhone which can cost £900+ with a contract over two years is considered relatively cheap now? Surely that can cover both the headset ($200-300) and a decent PC, or if the person already has a decent PC then just the headset itself. Heck, you don't even need a decent PC to just use VR for basic simulations and 360 degree video which can impress people just the same. Cost really is not the issue here.

Smartphones and tablets don't require you to wear a cumbersome headset that makes you blind to all else.

You're attacking the analogy but not addressing the main point behind it, being cumbersome doesn't somehow limit it from the mass market, laptops are more cumbersome than tablets or smartphones but they haven't faded into oblivion. If a product is good enough to a consumer to get over the cumbersome aspect then it'll sell. As for the isolating aspect, I really don't know why people keep making this point, headphones make you about as deaf to all else as a headset would make you blind to all else and it's not like you spend the entirety of your life around other people.

Smartphones and tablets are used in every moment of your life, and that's very unlikely to apply to VR as well.

Why not? Virtual tourism, gaming, viewing media, socialising are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head, VR can have numerous different applications.


Also, VR doesn't need to reach the mass market in 2015 for it to be the biggest story, unless if you're arguing that VR will have to wait another few decades to reach the mass market and it won't be due to Oculus, 2015 will still be seen as the year to kick it off. You still haven't stated anything else which has the potential to be as big a story as VR in 2015.

 

[Betta Lines]

I've got a 970 and I'm pretty sure I won't be able to run most games in 1440p at 90+fps that easily. At least not without turning down graphics which kinda ruins the whole VR immersion.

The most successful early VR games are likely to be the ones most well-optimised to run at high framerates. I'd also argue that turning stuff down to achieve 90fps is still a lot better than leaving stuff turned up and being below the refresh, and would still give you a great experience - after all, an untextured room with basic geometry looks incredible in VR if everything else is working well. By the time CV1 arrives, the 970 should be more affordable, and probably the bare minimum in terms of requirements. But I wasn't really thinking of the 970 - I'm expecting more cards from Nvidia and AMD by the end of the year, or at least by early 2016.

 

[mrklaw]

The most successful early VR games are likely to be the ones most well-optimised to run at high framerates. I'd also argue that turning stuff down to achieve 90fps is still a lot better than leaving stuff turned up and being below the refresh, and would still give you a great experience - after all, an untextured room with basic geometry looks incredible in VR if everything else is working well. By the time CV1 arrives, the 970 should be more affordable, and probably the bare minimum in terms of requirements. But I wasn't really thinking of the 970 - I'm expecting more cards from Nvidia and AMD by the end of the year, or at least by early 2016.

I want to see some more dual GPU single cards from both Nvidia and AMD, to go alongside their interesting VR SLI drivers. Mainly because I'm selfish and only have a non-SLI motherboard and don't want to change it, but I think it'd be good for the market generally too

 

[epmode]

segways were going go change the world too, but we had to change too much to use them.

Segway hype was manufactured by the inventor/manufacturer. I remember reading the most ridiculous shit well before it was actually unveiled.

Rift hype is backed up by thousands of hands-on tests.

 

[SparkTR]

This is very true, Desktop sales are falling so fast there is pretty much no real market. With business going Tablet/Laptop or Hybrid and then thin Client for users and Virtualization being pretty much all of any new Server/Infrastructure now.

Desktop sales for VR capable machines are at an all-time high looking at Nvidia and AMDs financial reports as well as other independent studies, those are the users that are going to drive VR. And OEM PCs are also on the rise again, but those aren't as relevant to that market. We're talking about 300m machines a year here.

 

[Mihos]

I have the Gear VR, and I can't wait for this to go bigger. Even just using a cell phone to power it, it is fricken amazing.

Honestly the killer app isn't even games, it is the feeling of presence at sports arenas, live action plays, tours, educational videos like the Ocean Rift and BlueVR. Watching my elderly, disabled mother in law with it was even more eye opening, even with just still pictures from mars, or in paris, watching a movie on a 80 foot screen, or being on stage with Paul McCartney/Circ deSole.

After using it for a few weeks, the games I really don't care about anymore, it is the sense of presence . I would love it if someone would create a virtual atypical 80s arcade with working arcade games from the time period. I would never leave it. Once we start getting avatars in that space, is when it will get really, really interesting. A VR Skype call with something as simple as a pool table could really change so much for someone who travels a lot like myself. Once having a VR stream from sports venues, concerts, and other events becomes popular (space probe feeds would be so awesome), we will be talking about VR addiction and inevitable talk shows about how it is ruining our youth (or that cant' be good for your eyes stuff that is already started with just one line drive by quips).

I honestly cant believe people saying this is just another form of 3D... it is the low latency between movements and actions in a 3D Space (sound, x-y-z motion, and yes vision) that makes this what it is. That feeling of presence is not just an optical illusion, it is an illusion of multiple senses at once and has to be experienced. Sitting untethered in a swivel chair (and a fan helps the experience for some reason) with just a cell phone powering what I am seeing is already mind blowing. Just give me content, I am starving for it now!

 

[Atomski]

I never said it was solely about specs. It being tethered to PC gaming is just never going to allow it hitting that mainstream regardless.

The average household is losing interest in big bulky desktop PC's at an insane rate over the last few years, at least, that is my experience.

Stuff like this always makes me laugh cause its like gaming didn't start out a niche thing.

Desktop sales for VR capable machines are at an all-time high looking at Nvidia and AMDs financial reports as well as other independent studies, those are the users that are going to drive VR. And OEM PCs are also on the rise again, but those aren't as relevant to that market. We're talking about 300m machines a year here.

This as well.. crappy prebuilt PCs sales should not be a sign for PC gaming in general.

 

[Krejlooc]

For me, in a year when Zelda U, MGSV:TPP and P5 are being released, a helmet by facebook is the least interesting story. But that's for me again.

"Virtual reality? But dude are you forgetting Zelda 9 and metal gear 7???"

 

[marc^o^]

I have tried Oculus V1 at a Las Vegas conference, I played a game where I was an elephant and I had to destroy all kinds of things in a psychedelic environment. Since then I bought a Google cardboard and an Hamido gear.

VR is the future, what it adds beyond tbe obvious immersion is a sense of verticality, a plane simply doesn't translate well on a mere screen. Its potential is amazing.

 

[Krejlooc]

I have tried Oculus V1 at a Las Vegas conference, I played a game where I was an elephant and I had to destroy all kinds of things in a psychedelic environment. Since then I bought a Google cardboard and an Hamido gear.

VR is the future, what it adds beyond tbe obvious immersion is a sense of verticality, a plane simply doesn't translate well on a mere screen. Its potential is amazing.

Dumpy going elephants

 

[Chindogg]

"Virtual reality? But dude are you forgetting Zelda 9 and metal gear 7???"

Do you have a personal stake in VR taking off? I get being excited over the technology but in several threads RE: VR you've been exceptionally hostile toward skeptics.

Yes, I do.

Well I hope it works out for your sake then. But to dismiss the fact that VR might not take off as you envision is a bit myopic.

 

[Krejlooc]

Do you have a personal stake in VR taking off

Yes, I do.

 

[CSJ]

I don't know if it has been said yet but isn't the biggest problem of the Oculus is that to have a decent image in the consumer version that doesn't look like ass with screendoor effects and horrible ability to read small text is that it's going to require a beast of a system to run it?

What average consumer device will be put in place, or is the general public happy to accept shitty fps where it actually really matters when you take into account head tracking. Because have you felt how awful anything around or near 30fps(hz..) is when using head motion? Ugh.
For enthusiast like myself sure, I spend tons of hardware but your average joe wouldn't even spend the cost of the device itself on a piece of hardware to run it. Maybe it'll make them, maybe the market is indeed big enough, I don't actually know!

 

[Krejlooc]

Well I hope it works out for your sake then. But to dismiss the fact that VR might not take off as you envision is a bit myopic.

I'm dealing with people who haven't tried vr telling me it's no different than a view master. This has nothing to do with "vr not taking off as I envision."

 

[Mihos]

I don't know if it has been said yet but isn't the biggest problem of the Oculus is that to have a decent image in the consumer version that doesn't look like ass with screendoor effects and horrible ability to read small text is that it's going to require a beast of a system to run it?

What average consumer device will be put in place, or is the general public happy to accept shitty fps where it actually really matters when you take into account head tracking. Because have you felt how awful anything around or near 30fps(hz..) is when using head motion? Ugh.
For enthusiast like myself sure, I spend tons of hardware but your average joe wouldn't even spend the cost of the device itself on a piece of hardware to run it. Maybe it'll make them, maybe the market is indeed big enough, I don't actually know!

To power what is the question. For most of what I like the most, my Note 4 is doing just fine. I honestly don't thing games will be the killer app for this device... and for the games themselves, you can get by with a lot less for first generation. HeroBound looks incredible and is only powered by a cell phone. Honestly, I think the biggest issue with the PC based systems is Windows and graphic card drivers. It is the low latency that makes this work more than horsepower.

 

[Queen of Hunting]

I don't know if it has been said yet but isn't the biggest problem of the Oculus is that to have a decent image in the consumer version that doesn't look like ass with screendoor effects and horrible ability to read small text is that it's going to require a beast of a system to run it?

What average consumer device will be put in place, or is the general public happy to accept shitty fps where it actually really matters when you take into account head tracking. Because have you felt how awful anything around or near 30fps(hz..) is when using head motion? Ugh.
For enthusiast like myself sure, I spend tons of hardware but your average joe wouldn't even spend the cost of the device itself on a piece of hardware to run it. Maybe it'll make them, maybe the market is indeed big enough, I don't actually know!

8 years later and people are still buying dvds over bluray just because the cost. people expecting the mass market to go out there way to buy expensive computers for this are setting up for a dissapointment, im sure many people on gaf will buy we are a gaming community with many dedicated fans who will fork out money (just look at how many gaffers have titans in sli etc)

 

[silvermember]

Yes, I do.

You might attack anybody that doesn't agree with you but the reality is this forum is insignificant in any meaningful way.

OR would have to do something that up to 90% of new products usually fail to do and it has to overcome far more things to hit mainstream than 3D had to.

The point being you are desperately fighting a meaningless battle since success depends on convincing the masses and not people on sites such as Gaf.

 

[mrklaw]

Do you have a personal stake in VR taking off? I get being excited over the technology but in several threads RE: VR you've been exceptionally hostile toward skeptics.



Well I hope it works out for your sake then. But to dismiss the fact that VR might not take off as you envision is a bit myopic.

there are plenty of people in this thread (and other VR ones) dismissing VR out of hand as a fad and no better than 3D specs, even though they have never even used a DK1 or cardboard. So while Krejlooc might have a vested interest, at least he has used the damn things, so is speaking from a position of experience, rather than just stating an opinion with no grounds or meaningful context.

 

[metareferential]

The display of ignorance towards VR is depressing. And I'm not just talking about this thread.

Even specialized media often misunderstands what the tech is (and can do).

 

[Artex]

My body is ready; my PC is not.

 

[Queen of Hunting]

The display of ignorance towards VR is depressing. And I'm not just talking about this thread.

Even specialized media often misunderstands what the tech is (and can do).

im actually scared of a virutal reality world where i can go round killing people. like i posted earlier in this thread i think this could be a huge problem with vr

 

[Durante]

Do you have a personal stake in VR taking off? I get being excited over the technology but in several threads RE: VR you've been exceptionally hostile toward skeptics.

I don't have any personal stake in it, but I do think most "skeptics" make bad arguments from uninformed positions. If you read the same inane non-argument for the 50th time it can get aggravating.

Desktop sales for VR capable machines are at an all-time high looking at Nvidia and AMDs financial reports as well as other independent studies, those are the users that are going to drive VR. And OEM PCs are also on the rise again, but those aren't as relevant to that market. We're talking about 300m machines a year here.

Yeah, people act like gaming PC sales are declining when that is clearly not the case.

 

[scitek]

because, of course, it is

I like how people discredit Zuckerberg and pretend like he became a billionaire by not knowing what he's doing.

 

[Krejlooc]

You might attack anybody that doesn't agree with you but the reality is this forum is insignificant in any meaningful way.

For this stage of the technological diffusion curve, forum interaction is not meaningless. This is the part of the curve where early adopters and enthusiasts disseminate information for opinion leaders to proliferate. It happens. The number of interview requests from outlets I get, from kotaku to random blogs and podcasts to invitation to guest lecture at universities are indications that these are not meaningless interactions. I see my own words and the words of my peers repeated across the internet and into print publications.

This type of grassroots interaction is incredibly important for an emerging medium. People talking on forums is how the rift itself came to be in the first place.

 

[razzmahtazz]

I wonder if VR's place for the first few years will be arcades. In a kinda circular time thing, where arcades bring them to the masses, console tech catches on, arcades die again.

 

[Seanspeed]

I'm not saying it's the same experience, and neither am I saying that VR won't be an amazing experience. I just don't think it's going to revolutionize how we interact with our media in such a profound way. I don't think it will become something that almost every household has like a TV or smartphone.

When you say, "VR is just another way of looking at a screen", you are showing an inherently misguided understanding of what viewing stuff in VR is like. It is not like looking at a screen at all. The world is put to scale in front of your eyes. q

What? I completely disagree with this. Colour TV is a vastly greater leap than depth perception. We've had depth perception in the form of 3D for years.

Traditional 3D is an improved sense of depth perception compared to a 2D display, but it is still not even close to what the '3D' in VR is like. It is a whole different ballgame. And yes, I think it is just as big as the leap to color, if not greater.

 

[KaiserBecks]

We know it'll be big if Tara Reid is going to show up at their launch party.

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

For enthusiast like myself sure, I spend tons of hardware but your average joe wouldn't even spend the cost of the device itself on a piece of hardware to run it. Maybe it'll make them, maybe the market is indeed big enough, I don't actually know!

The first Oculus isn't intended for the average joe. Oculus isn't expecting your mom to buy a powerful PC and a $300 headset. They're expecting enthusiasts, like yourself, to buy it. Cost/power is only an issue of time. It'll hit the mainstream when a low cost headset can run on cheap hardware, which won't take very long (4-5 years at most).

There seems to be a misconception that Oculus will, or even intends, to become the next smartphone-like success story immediately and that's what VR enthusiasts expect of it, but those are long term goals.

 

[Betta Lines]

When you say, "VR is just another way of looking at a screen", you are showing an inherently misguided understanding of what viewing stuff in VR is like. It is not like looking at a screen at all. The world is put to scale in front of your eyes. q


Traditional 3D is an improved sense of depth perception compared to a 2D display, but it is still not even close to what the '3D' in VR is like. It is a whole different ballgame. And yes, I think it is just as big as the leap to color, if not greater.

I second Seanspeed's points. It only looks a bit like looking at a screen at the moment because we've learnt to recognise pixels and artifacts like aliasing as something related to screen technology. Once the resolution is high enough and SDE is eliminated, it shouldn't look like a screen at all.

I also agree than it is bigger than the move to colour - you can still have a totally compelling black and white VR experience and believe you are there - no amount of colour technology applied to a traditional screen is going to do that.

 

[Solid Samus]

Because it's the principle of faking 3D for decades now, as i said, an expensive View-Master.

3D HMDs which fake looking at a 3D panel and OR use very different technology. They're not the same and they hardly share basic principles because they're going for two very different things. One goes for the experience of viewing a 3D panel from a distance; the other is going for presence in a virtual environment - calling it just an expensive view master is unfair and lacking vision. Calling it an expensive viewmaster disregards everything OR and modern VR does that... actually enables them to exist right now and in the future as a consumer product. VR doesn't need to be holodeck level to be a distinct and important iteration of this type of technology. I really don't understand calling OR an expensive view master because it's not literally magic Cortana bullshit... acting like VR isn't worthwhile until it's literally a hardlight holodeck, and using that as a way to diminish the impact of the tech's current form, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[metareferential]

I second Seanspeed's points. It only looks a bit like looking at a screen at the moment because we've learnt to recognise pixels and artifacts like aliasing as something related to screen technology. Once the resolution is high enough and SDE is eliminated, it shouldn't look like a screen at all.

I also agree than it is bigger than the move to colour - you can still have a totally compelling black and white VR experience and believe you are there - no amount of colour technology applied to a traditional screen is going to do that.

People thinking VR is just "a 3D screen strapped to your face" should be ignored, rather than educated.

There's no way they're going to understand, they're just close-minded.

VR adds so much more, mainly the scale. And the illusion of being "there" or "somewhere else".

Even on rudimentary hardware and software, it just works.

Too bad there's no way of showing them other than make them try it. It makes my blood boil, xD

 

[Mad Season]

I still dont think the tech is ready for VR

 

[Betta Lines]

I still dont think the tech is ready for VR

This is deeply profound.