So VR is here

Maximus Alexander

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Only somebody who's never tried VR would be able to make statements like that.

As a medium of entertainment, it's a whole new platform and adds a previously unexperienced dimension as unique as the experience of the first televisions or consoles.

I don't know how you can be so damning of something so revolutionary that you've never tried. Describing it as a 'new screen' and similar to a niche input controller really just shows how little you understand it.

You're making bizarre assumptions here and making the classic fallacy of "I really like this thing so surely everyone else must too!" There are rafts upon rafts of people who have tried it and, even if initially impressed by the novelty, ultimately thought 'Meh'.

Zillah

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Nothing I've seen come out of it yet has looked particularly novel nor done anything to pique my interest. I haven't seen any new types of game mechanics that were compelling and couldn't have been achieved without a VR headset. It's just a new type of screen like, but one that makes some genres unplayable and requires you to wear a helmet. I can see how it adds marginal utility to things like simulators and motor racing games, but I'm not a particular fan of either genre.

I'm cool with you being excited about it like, I'm just not. I wouldn't see it as much different than a niche peripheral like a flight stick or driving wheel. Each to their own.

I'm honestly not just being combative, and this is not meant to sound like a hostile put-down, but: you literally don't know what you're talking about. You are speaking from a position of ignorance. You really don't get it.

Try the Budget Cuts demo on a Vive, or play through Forgotten Realms, or shoot a bunch of cartoon dudes attacking your castle with arrows in Valve's The Lab, and you will understand why what you're saying above is based in ignorance.

You're entitled to not like it, of course, but that's only possible after you try it. The sort of comments like you make above are only possible if you simply don't get it.

Venom

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Nothing I've seen come out of it yet has looked particularly novel nor done anything to pique my interest. I haven't seen any new types of game mechanics that were compelling and couldn't have been achieved without a VR headset.

Agreed, for all the talk about about the Rift or Vive or PS whatever, the one thing thats gets left out of the conversation every time is the games that will make the experience and the cost worthwhile?

Lots of developers have popped out of the woodwork to sell VR tech demos but until there are a couple of proper VR only games that are must haves, I don't see VR becoming the mainstream.

TerrorFirmer

Not at all, VR is not for everyone, but there's a big difference between having tried it and being 'meh' about the general platform due to the limited availability of material or cumbersome nature of the setup..... and outright dismissing it, without having tried it at all, by claiming it adds nothing new and comparing to a niche motion controller or flight stick.

Arguing that VR adds nothing that couldn't have been achieved without VR is like arguing that a TV adds nothing that couldn't be achieved on a radio. The added dimensions - sight/visual and being 'in' a game respectively - are incomparable to any derivative of what preceded them.

RasTa

I thought I added I wouldn't pay €400 for one after playing it yesterday.

http://www.smythstoys.com/ie/en-ie/video-games-tablets/c-747/playstation-4/p-17395/playstation-vr/

Still more stuff to buy too, not sure why they didn't bundle everything in as it seems a bit messy.

Zillah

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Arguing that VR adds nothing that couldn't have been achieved without VR is like arguing that a TV adds nothing that couldn't be achieved on a radio.

This is perfectly accurate. Like, throwing knives with your own hands in Budget Cuts, or hurling enemies around with telekinetic powers in Raw Data is something that never existed in gaming before.

You don't have to like it but these comments about it doing nothing that hasn't been done before are absurd.

The one thing I'll say is that having to purchase the PS Camera, which, as far as I can tell, is essential to it working, separate seems a bit short sighted on their part. Not sure why they didn't just bundle it.

Maximus Alexander

Zillah wrote: »

I'm honestly not just being combative, and this is not meant to sound like a hostile put-down, but: you literally don't know what you're talking about. You are speaking from a position of ignorance. You really don't get it.

Try the Budget Cuts demo on a Vive, or play through Forgotten Realms, or shoot a bunch of cartoon dudes attacking your castle with arrows in Valve's The Lab, and you will understand why what you're saying above is based in ignorance.

You're entitled to not like it, of course, but that's only possible after you try it. The sort of comments like you make above are only possible if you simply don't get it.

No, you don't get it. You're doing that thing that's so common among any population of fans, where you get defensive when someone isn't as wowed as you are by the object of your fanaticism. You literally cannot seem to grasp that someone who has tried a Vive just wasn't impressed by it, or compelled to go and purchase one so that they could use it some more.

I found nothing in The Lab, for example, that actually required the headset to achieve. Things like the Longbow, for example, were available for the failed tech that was Playstation Move. The only addition is 3D screen with a wide FOV.

Venom

Deleted User wrote: »

The one thing I'll say is that having to purchase the PS Camera, which, as far as I can tell, is essential to it working, separate seems a bit short sighted on their part. Not sure why they didn't just bundle it.

That and the controllers knock the price up to the 500-600 quid mark and ruin the PR vibe of it costing the same as the console.

Venom

Venom wrote: »

That and the controllers knock the price up to the 500-600 quid mark and ruin the PR vibe of it costing the same as the console.

Do you need to purchase the controllers as well? I mean, could you use the bog standard PS4 ones?

Zillah

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I found nothing in The Lab, for example, that actually required the headset to achieve. Things like the Longbow, for example, were available for the failed tech that was Playstation Move. The only addition is 3D screen with a wide FOV.

The only addition was a head-mounted stereoscopic 3D display with sub-millimeter tracking in a full room space and accurate hand controller tracking that blows something like Playstation Move out of the water.

As I said you don't have to enjoy it but you seem adamant to misrepresent how fundamentally different the experience is to anything else available in gaming. You call me a fanatic but it's you that seems to have the weird prejudice.

Dyr

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

And that's the kind of statement you hear from penniless people outside the betting shop.

Many of us, having bought into Kinect, Mega CD, 32X, Move and heaven knows how many other high priced peripherals on console are too aware that they fail more often than they succeed.

Y'see I didn't buy into any of them because I'm not a console user. But I've been playing computer games since pong and as far as I'm concerned VR/AR is the paradigm shift that will move games and everything else off the screens they've existed on up until now

I've no idea what sony have come up with but comparing VR to a Kinect is daft. It's not a peripheral, it's making the window that we viewed games and everything else through obsolete

um7y1h83ge06nx

They probably didn't include the camera as some PS4 owners may have it already.

I haven't tried any VR yet, very eager to so I can make my own mind up. Until then I'm not going to buy any VR solution, I don't want to buy the modern equivalent of a Sega CD or 32x.

Be interesting to see how things go.

With the PS4/Slim, PS4 Pro and PS VR Sony are really fragmenting their Playstation user base, not sure I like that.

Maximus Alexander

Zillah wrote: »

The only addition was a head-mounted stereoscopic 3D display with sub-millimeter tracking in a full room space and accurate hand controller tracking that blows something like Playstation Move out of the water.

As I said you don't have to enjoy it but you seem adamant to misrepresent how fundamentally different the experience is to anything else available in gaming. You call me a fanatic but it's you that seems to have the weird prejudice.

I don't know where that's coming from. I came into a thread where people are casually discussing their opinions of VR and added mine, which was a fairly laid back "I'm not that interested and it doesn't seem to do much new". Which was apparently enough to get your back up.

Me not subscribing to the cult of VR is not going to cause anyone to call around and take yours from you, you can relax.

RasTa

Cheeky...

http://www.adverts.ie/playstation/playstation-vr-new-in-box/11546969

Retr0gamer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

You need to try out VR before you dismiss it, really.

This here is far more of a major problem than people realise for VR. Nintendo's virtual boy suffered from this. The system is a total joke to most people but anyone that I've made try my virtual boy has been impressed by how good the 3D is and wonder how it did so badly. One of the main reasons is you can't show off how good it is unless you try it. That's something VR is going to suffer from and with a lot of peoples fear of looking like a twat or just a fear of something new it's going to take a lot of work to convince people, a lot more than a pop up shop in Dublin.

Deleted User wrote: »

But not everyone can afford the nearly €3,000 that you're going to have to sink into the oculus or the vive.

The PS4 is €400, the PSVR is €400 (with the €50/€100 - can't remember which - for the camera). That still works at €850-€900 for the lot.

Plus, realistically, a lot of people would already own a PS4.

Admittedly it won't be the same levels of the previous two, but, from what I've heard, still pretty decent for what you're paying.

It's nothing to do with price. The PSVR is the best option but developers really are not going to be targeting the PS VR, the same way developers did not target the likes of the Mega CD or 32X. A smaller userbase means less people to sell to. It's not the right environment for VR at the moment. Also it's not like you can make a regular game and tack VR on, you really need to make your game for VR from scratch.

And that's why PC is a much better environment. the open nature means you'll have fan mods and patches and non-professional demos taking advantage of the hardware, projects that require little to no financial overheads.

Canis Lupus

I've tried VR. Thought it was great. However as I've also stated in other threads there's literally zero chance of me gaming with one. I'm not coming home from work, sitting down in front of the pc and putting a VR headset on my head.... Just won't. My GF would probably leave me and I'd be forever knocking over my vodka and coke.

Skatedude

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Nothing I've seen come out of it yet has looked particularly novel nor done anything to pique my interest. I haven't seen any new types of game mechanics that were compelling and couldn't have been achieved without a VR headset. It's just a new type of screen like, but one that makes some genres unplayable and requires you to wear a helmet. I can see how it adds marginal utility to things like simulators and motor racing games, but I'm not a particular fan of either genre.

I'm cool with you being excited about it like, I'm just not. I wouldn't see it as much different than a niche peripheral like a flight stick or driving wheel. Each to their own.

Thats like saying, I saw some people having sex and dosent look like fun.

Riesen_Meal

I have an appointment at the weekend to have a gander, I've only done the first incarnation of VR probably over 20 years ago, we had a machine in the arcade I used to work in, it was terrible...

I'm completely open minded to giving it a go but I'm sure if I was to get it, I'll probably go and get the Vive...

Sephiroth_dude

Deleted User wrote: »

But not everyone can afford the nearly €3,000 that you're going to have to sink into the oculus or the vive.

The PS4 is €400, the PSVR is €400 (with the €50/€100 - can't remember which - for the camera). That still works at €850-€900 for the lot.

Plus, realistically, a lot of people would already own a PS4.

Admittedly it won't be the same levels of the previous two, but, from what I've heard, still pretty decent for what you're paying.

Well I don't have that kind of money either but I would try and save with the hope of eventually getting it, not that I'm planning or will be able to get one anytime soon.

I persume the 3000 figure includes a new p.c capable of running one of these devices?

Beefy78

I've got friends who are getting this and I'll give it a go on theirs over the next couple of months before I decide next year whether or not to take the plunge.

VR isn't a fad, I truly believe that. It is the future. That said, I don't know if PSVR is the future but as an affordable entry into a side of gaming that many of us have been dreaming of since the age of about five it is a really tempting prospect.

Beefy78

I've got friends who are getting this and I'll give it a go on theirs over the next couple of months before I decide next year whether or not to take the plunge.

VR isn't a fad, I truly believe that. It is the future. That said, I don't know if PSVR is the future but as an affordable entry into a side of gaming that many of us have been dreaming of since the age of about five it is a really tempting prospect.

Maximus Alexander

Skatedude wrote: »

Thats like saying, I saw some people having sex and dosent look like fun.

If we're going to do analogies, a much more apt one would be:

It's like drinking a few cocktails and saying "I don't really see what the big deal is. I'll probably stick to the whiskey."

And then having all the people who like cocktails tell you that you're ignorant and that they completely redefine drinking.

Guys over at polygon tested the PSVR on an Xbox One and it worked

http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/13/13269974/how-to-use-playstation-vr-on-xbox-one

Obviously theres no tracking or optimization etc. so totally pointless

Ave Sodalis

Zillah wrote:

Again, no, that's not how it works. If a game is badly designed and the person is susceptible then they will get queasy within a couple of minutes. If you're still fine after five minutes you'll be fine all day as far as nausea is concerned.

Well, no. Whatever about the rest of your post, the 5 minutes is wrong. I'm unfortunately speaking from a chronic motion sickness sufferer. Games in first person are a no-no for me, regardless of the game. I don't even have to play it myself, just watching it does the trick. The time it takes to start feeling it varies though. It can take 5 mins, it can take an hour.
Although VR looks great, I know without a shadow of a doubt that it will cause me to throw my guts up because something like Minecraft has me lying in bed feeling like crap for the rest of the day.

ERG89

Zillah wrote: »

Again, no, that's not how it works. If a game is badly designed and the person is susceptible then they will get queasy within a couple of minutes. If you're still fine after five minutes you'll be fine all day as far as nausea is concerned.

A lot of VR games have you on your feet, so you can get tired after an hour, and they press down on your face a bit, so you might want to take it off and let your skin breathe for a few minutes, but nausea isn't the issue. We're in the first generation so they're a little bit heavier and less comfortable than they should be, but that's going to improve.

Pretty much the only people I've ever seen talk about why VR won't work are people know nothing about it.
(I mean all this for PC, by the way, I've no idea what PSVR is going to be like - personally I was sceptical that a console could maintain the framerate.)

I don't see any evidence of the headsets being able to handle extended periods without causing nausea or tiredness. The fine all day statement is confusing. I see most games are designed to be shorter experiences for a reason, you play an hour & nobody I hear talk about it says they could play a long session. No matter if it's a PC or not the headset makes you feel that not the system.
I think anyone playing VR has made such a financial investment they won't write it off now but I have yet to see the game never mind games that make me say wow that's why I need one. I don't feel I need to invest in one to say that. I've tried the Rift & was thinking that was nice demonstration but not something I see as "the future".
I'm as big a Batman fan as anyone but I don't want to play that in VR or something like Job Simulator, if Lucky's Tale is the future I'd rather play something like Yooka Laylee on my non 4K telly.

testaccount123

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't know where that's coming from. I came into a thread where people are casually discussing their opinions of VR and added mine, which was a fairly laid back "I'm not that interested and it doesn't seem to do much new"

:rolleyes:

This is just ridiculous. The Vive puts you inside a virtual world which you can walk around in and manipulate.

What is the equivalent experience?

Either you havent tried it or you are just trolling.

Dyr

ERG89 wrote: »

I think anyone playing VR has made such a financial investment they won't write it off now but I have yet to see the game never mind games that make me say wow that's why I need one.

I think anyone without a VR set up are just writing it off to justify their refusal to make a financial investment.

Statements like that are easy and fun to make

Same with the guff about nausea and motion sickness, they have nothing to do with time spent playing.

Temptamperu

testaccount123 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

This is just ridiculous. The Vive puts you inside a virtual world which you can walk around in and manipulate.

What is the equivalent experience?

Either you havent tried it or you are just trolling.

Not everyone has a spare room to hold all the equipment. its easier to just have a tv and a control pad. I have no trouble getting immersed in games at the minute.

testaccount123

Temptamperu wrote: »

Not everyone has a spare room to hold all the equipment. its easier to just have a tv and a control pad. I have no trouble getting immersed in games at the minute.

Im not in favour of making it mandatory. I play CIV mostly myself.

But statements like 'it doesnt seem to do much new' are absurd.