About VR explained

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

There seems to be a lot of confusion about VR. So I am going to try and clarify a few things.

1. '3D gaming or 3D TV didnt take off why would this?'

3D gaming does allow you to literally look behind you and still be in game in the expected place in that game. 3D gaming doesn't allow you to move your body over to avoid an obstacle, VR does. 3D gaming is limited to your screen, VR is fully immersive.

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

3. 'Its a Gimmick'. It might be but it has millions of dollars in interest from the leading venture capitalist firm in silicon valley. A few high profile people in the gaming industry quit good jobs to come work for something that is highly risky. And finally...games are already being developed.

4. 'Sony will make one'. I think it would be great for the industry if they did, but given that Oculus Rift was on the front cover of so many high profile magazines, that if Sony had something to say of serious substance they would have by now.

5. 'It will only be good if its for the consoles'. 1. because your eyes are so close to the screen and because of motion detection the screen MUST be 1080p at 60fps min in order to be viable long term and to avoid motion sickness. Preferable higher res than 1080p. 2. A full setup could involve Oculus, STEM system and maybe even an omni. That is a lot of USB ports guys.

I hope this clears up some things

#2 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

Take 100 people and have them use VR goggles for an hour. About half of them either won't be able to see the 3D or will get dizzy or will find it straining for the eyes. Add to it that it's harmful for children and you'll see why it will never be an industry standard.

Even if it were to and all games supported it, do you really think you would be able to play all your games using the goggles? The typical hardcore gamer spends 3+ hours a day gaming: your eyes would melt off your face.

#3 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Take 100 people and have them use VR goggles for an hour. About half of them either won't be able to see the 3D or will get dizzy or will find it straining for the eyes. Add to it that it's harmful for children and you'll see why it will never be an industry standard.

Even if it were to and all games supported it, do you really think you would be able to play all your games using the goggles? The typical hardcore gamer spends 3+ hours a day gaming: your eyes would melt off your face.

as it turns out Oculus Rift has been said to HELP people with depth perception.

why is it harmful to children?

and yes. I have heard of people playing with them on for many hours. I have done so myself (although just 1 hour).

Keep in mind it will not be on all games nor required.

#4 Posted by Jacanuk (5448 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

There seems to be a lot of confusion about VR. So I am going to try and clarify a few things.

1. '3D gaming or 3D TV didnt take off why would this?'

3D gaming does allow you to literally look behind you and still be in game in the expected place in that game. 3D gaming doesn't allow you to move your body over to avoid an obstacle, VR does. 3D gaming is limited to your screen, VR is fully immersive.

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

3. 'Its a Gimmick'. It might be but it has millions of dollars in interest from the leading venture capitalist firm in silicon valley. A few high profile people in the gaming industry quit good jobs to come work for something that is highly risky. And finally...games are already being developed.

4. 'Sony will make one'. I think it would be great for the industry if they did, but given that Oculus Rift was on the front cover of so many high profile magazines, that if Sony had something to say of serious substance they would have by now.

5. 'It will only be good if its for the consoles'. 1. because your eyes are so close to the screen and because of motion detection the screen MUST be 1080p at 60fps min in order to be viable long term and to avoid motion sickness. Preferable higher res than 1080p. 2. A full setup could involve Oculus, STEM system and maybe even an omni. That is a lot of USB ports guys.

I hope this clears up some things

Care to share your credentials as to why your opinion is worth more than anyone elses on VR?

Also you clearly should put this in System Wars. And why the need for so many threads about the same? i think 99.99999% of users on gamespot get that you are really excited for this and you are happy about it.

But as to whether or not this will become anything but a gimmick is something time will tell us not you or anyone else.

#5 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

as it turns out Oculus Rift has been said to HELP people with depth perception.

why is it harmful to children?

and yes. I have heard of people playing with them on for many hours. I have done so myself (although just 1 hour).

Keep in mind it will not be on all games nor required.

It's harmful to children because their optic nerve and muscles are still in development and using a device that causes the eyes to defocus can generate permanent eye damage.

Even for adults, yes, one can play it for 4 hours straight once, get a headache and never do it again, unless they're insane and want to burn their eyes. It's a device made to be played in short sessions, completely unfit for the sort of gaming we usually do.

It's a cool toy, but it will never become industry standard. Not many people will buy it to start with and even if it were to sell like hot cakes, too many people still wouldn't be able to use it. I don't know where you heard that thing about helping with depth perception (plus, that's only one of many eye conditions that lead to not seeing 3D). It would be helpful if you mentioned your sources.

#6 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

as it turns out Oculus Rift has been said to HELP people with depth perception.

why is it harmful to children?

and yes. I have heard of people playing with them on for many hours. I have done so myself (although just 1 hour).

Keep in mind it will not be on all games nor required.

It's harmful to children because their optic nerve and muscles are still in development and using a device that causes the eyes to defocus can generate permanent eye damage.

Even for adults, yes, one can play it for 4 hours straight once, get a headache and never do it again, unless they're insane and want to burn their eyes. It's a device made to be played in short sessions, completely unfit for the sort of gaming we usually do.

It's a cool toy, but it will never become industry standard. Not many people will buy it to start with and even if it were to sell like hot cakes, too many people still wouldn't be able to use it. I don't know where you heard that thing about helping with depth perception (plus, that's only one of many eye conditions that lead to not seeing 3D). It would be helpful if you mentioned your sources.

I flat out do no believe its anymore harmful then me watching this monitor I am typing on now.

They used to say the exact same thing about kids and TV by the way.

#7 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@SEANMCAD said:

There seems to be a lot of confusion about VR. So I am going to try and clarify a few things.

1. '3D gaming or 3D TV didnt take off why would this?'

3D gaming does allow you to literally look behind you and still be in game in the expected place in that game. 3D gaming doesn't allow you to move your body over to avoid an obstacle, VR does. 3D gaming is limited to your screen, VR is fully immersive.

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

3. 'Its a Gimmick'. It might be but it has millions of dollars in interest from the leading venture capitalist firm in silicon valley. A few high profile people in the gaming industry quit good jobs to come work for something that is highly risky. And finally...games are already being developed.

4. 'Sony will make one'. I think it would be great for the industry if they did, but given that Oculus Rift was on the front cover of so many high profile magazines, that if Sony had something to say of serious substance they would have by now.

5. 'It will only be good if its for the consoles'. 1. because your eyes are so close to the screen and because of motion detection the screen MUST be 1080p at 60fps min in order to be viable long term and to avoid motion sickness. Preferable higher res than 1080p. 2. A full setup could involve Oculus, STEM system and maybe even an omni. That is a lot of USB ports guys.

I hope this clears up some things

Care to share your credentials as to why your opinion is worth more than anyone elses on VR?

Also you clearly should put this in System Wars. And why the need for so many threads about the same? i think 99.99999% of users on gamespot get that you are really excited for this and you are happy about it.

But as to whether or not this will become anything but a gimmick is something time will tell us not you or anyone else.

well for starters I actually have a dev kit and I have tried many of the tech demos which is likely more than others here can say.

Additionally, I have been checking the news on this subject often.

#8 Edited by wiouds (5347 posts) -

I find the immersion to be overrated and very subjective.

Few games are in first person. I find many games are better third person. I would hate too lost all these great game because they try to force it into a first person view.

#9 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@wiouds said:

I find the immersion to be overrated and very subjective.

Few games are in first person. I find many games are better third person. I would hate too lost all these great game because they try to force it into a first person view.

well not to change the subject to first person vs 3rd. I personally can not stand 3rd person view and its often a deal breaker if I cant switch to 1st person view.

I think many younger gamers simply are not used to it enough to understand how immersive it can be.

having said that, given the gaming industry is larger than the movie industry I think its possible to make different games for different people and I think the number of consumers interested in VR will exceed what some people think but I would also agree that not everyone is going to be interested

#10 Edited by wiouds (5347 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@wiouds said:

I find the immersion to be overrated and very subjective.

Few games are in first person. I find many games are better third person. I would hate too lost all these great game because they try to force it into a first person view.

well not to change the subject to first person vs 3rd. I personally can not stand 3rd person view and its often a deal breaker if I cant switch to 1st person view.

I think many younger gamers simply are not used to it enough to understand how immersive it can be.

having said that, given the gaming industry is larger than the movie industry I think its possible to make different games for different people and I think the number of consumers interested in VR will exceed what some people think but I would also agree that not everyone is going to be interested

It was not a first person vs. third person. I was stating that many games are better for not being first person. I would say they are more games better because they are not first person and would only be hurt by becoming first person.

I hate when a game is first person for sake of being first person.

Second I said the immersion is subjective. The stereo-image goggle give is 3d image over the entire field of vision. Anything else is subjective so it can not be measure in any real units and proven to be there.

#11 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@wiouds said:

I find the immersion to be overrated and very subjective.

Few games are in first person. I find many games are better third person. I would hate too lost all these great game because they try to force it into a first person view.

well not to change the subject to first person vs 3rd. I personally can not stand 3rd person view and its often a deal breaker if I cant switch to 1st person view.

I think many younger gamers simply are not used to it enough to understand how immersive it can be.

having said that, given the gaming industry is larger than the movie industry I think its possible to make different games for different people and I think the number of consumers interested in VR will exceed what some people think but I would also agree that not everyone is going to be interested

It was not a first person vs. third person. I was stating that many games are better for not being first person. I would say they are more games better because they are not first person and would only be hurt by becoming first person.

I hate when a game is first person for sake of being first person.

Second I said the immersion is subjective. The stereo-image goggle give is 3d image over the entire field of vision. Anything else is subjective so it can not be measure in any real units and proven to be there.

in my mind most of the 3rd person games I have seen should have been 1st person and would have been better as such.

Find it interesting how you state somethings around 3rd person view as factual then say immersion is subjective. Additionally neither of those subjects are relevant.

there is plenty of room for both methods just like there is room for all kinds of movies and I can assure you there are a f*ck ton of people who are interested and a f*ck ton of people who think batman in 3rd person is retarded but we dont suggest our way is the way everyone should game.

understand?

#12 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -
@SEANMCAD said:

I flat out do no believe its anymore harmful then me watching this monitor I am typing on now.

They used to say the exact same thing about kids and TV by the way.

No offense, but that's because you are uninformed about it. You base your assumptions on hearsay rather than facts (and facts).

You say "I heard somewhere (don't know where) it's good for your eyes if you have depth perception problems" and you assume that's true without furter examination because you like to think it's true.

It doesn't even take research to piece together that staring for hours at two screens four inches from your eyes which constantly cause your eyes to unnaturally defocus is not the same as a computer monitor.

#13 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:
@SEANMCAD said:

I flat out do no believe its anymore harmful then me watching this monitor I am typing on now.

They used to say the exact same thing about kids and TV by the way.

No offense, but that's because you are uninformed about it. You base your assumptions on hearsay rather than facts: "I heard somewhere (don't know where) it's good for your eyes if you have depth perception problems" and you assume that's true without furter examination because you like to think it's true. It doesn't even take research to piece together that staring for hours at two screens four inches from your eyes wich constantly cause your eyes to unnaturally defocus is not the same as a computer monitor.

I have had the thing on my head for 2 hours and was fine.

Yes...an article was publishing saying that the Oculus Rift helps those with depth perception problems.

but I get it...you dont care about VR. thats cool bro

#14 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

I have had the thing on my head for 2 hours and was fine.

Yes...an article was publishing saying that the Oculus Rift helps those with depth perception problems.

but I get it...you dont care about VR. thats cool bro

You used it once. You can smoke a cigarette and it won't kill you, but repeated daily use will. You can use VR goggles once and think theyre cool (I want to try them too, once) but prolonged daily use like most core gamers game will boil your eyes.

And that article does not exist until you link to it.

#15 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

I have had the thing on my head for 2 hours and was fine.

Yes...an article was publishing saying that the Oculus Rift helps those with depth perception problems.

but I get it...you dont care about VR. thats cool bro

You used it once. You can smoke a cigarette and it won't kill you, but repeated daily use will. You can use VR goggles once and think theyre cool (I want to try them too, once) but prolonged daily use like most core gamers game will boil your eyes.

And that article does not exist until you link to it.

just for you

#16 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

You used it once. You can smoke a cigarette and it won't kill you, but repeated daily use will. You can use VR goggles once and think theyre cool (I want to try them too, once) but prolonged daily use like most core gamers game will boil your eyes.

And that article does not exist until you link to it.

just for you

Which does nothing but prove my point: they are making an application which uses the VR goggles' principle of forcing the eyes into unnatural unfocused behavior in order to compensate already unfocused eyes. It's cool if it works, but in itself it's an admission that the device forces your eyes out of normal behavior, something you really do not want to be doing for any extended period of time if you value your eyesight.

#17 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

You used it once. You can smoke a cigarette and it won't kill you, but repeated daily use will. You can use VR goggles once and think theyre cool (I want to try them too, once) but prolonged daily use like most core gamers game will boil your eyes.

And that article does not exist until you link to it.

just for you

Which does nothing but prove my point: they are making an application which uses the VR goggles' principle of forcing the eyes into unnatural unfocused behavior in order to compensate already unfocused eyes. It's cool if it works, but in itself it's an admission that the device forces your eyes out of normal behavior, something you really do not want to be doing for any extended period of time if you value your eyesight.

I will be sure to let them know you discovered a hole.

If normal VR is to put the eye in a normal position then the result would be a normal depth perception?

#18 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

I will be sure to let them know you discovered a hole.

If normal VR is to put the eye in a normal position then the result would be a normal depth perception?

The "hole" has been out of the bag since the Virtual Boy, the mid-1990s. We've suspected it was harmful since then and we've known for a fact for at least 3 years.

If by normal VR you mean a single screen, yes, it would definitely hurt your eyes esponentially less, as they would still be allowed to focus on converging vectors as they normally do instead of being forced into an unnatural position by separate ones. Of course there would still be the issue of having a screen less than 4 inches from your face for extended periods of time. There's a reason if optometrists strongly recommend maintaining a minimum distance from monitors and displays.

#19 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

I will be sure to let them know you discovered a hole.

If normal VR is to put the eye in a normal position then the result would be a normal depth perception?

The "hole" has been out of the bag since the Virtual Boy, the mid-1990s. We've suspected it was harmful since then and we've known for a fact for at least 3 years.

If by normal VR you mean a single screen, yes, it would definitely hurt your eyes esponentially less, as they would still be allowed to focus on converging vectors as they normally do instead of being forced into an unnatural position by separate ones. Of course there would still be the issue of having a screen less than 4 inches from your face for extended periods of time. There's a reason if optometrists strongly recommend maintaining a minimum distance from monitors and displays.

If VR can correct vision I fail to understand how a properly aligned VR can incorrect vision.

The difference between looking at a screen at 1080p and looking at a 5" screen at 1080p is exactly that, the distance between the pixels. Thus...allowing you to be closer to the screen without the pixel problem.

The difference between today and 1994 is that you are looking at millions of more pixels close up so the pixel distance is not an issue close up. same for TV.

ADDED:

3D GAMING IS NOT VR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

totally different experience and totally different visual challenges.

#20 Posted by ojmstr (1328 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

There seems to be a lot of confusion about VR. So I am going to try and clarify a few things.

1. '3D gaming or 3D TV didnt take off why would this?'

3D gaming does allow you to literally look behind you and still be in game in the expected place in that game. 3D gaming doesn't allow you to move your body over to avoid an obstacle, VR does. 3D gaming is limited to your screen, VR is fully immersive.

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

3. 'Its a Gimmick'. It might be but it has millions of dollars in interest from the leading venture capitalist firm in silicon valley. A few high profile people in the gaming industry quit good jobs to come work for something that is highly risky. And finally...games are already being developed.

4. 'Sony will make one'. I think it would be great for the industry if they did, but given that Oculus Rift was on the front cover of so many high profile magazines, that if Sony had something to say of serious substance they would have by now.

5. 'It will only be good if its for the consoles'. 1. because your eyes are so close to the screen and because of motion detection the screen MUST be 1080p at 60fps min in order to be viable long term and to avoid motion sickness. Preferable higher res than 1080p. 2. A full setup could involve Oculus, STEM system and maybe even an omni. That is a lot of USB ports guys.

I hope this clears up some things

4. Thats what Sony are going to do next month;)

#21 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@ojmstr said:

@SEANMCAD said:

There seems to be a lot of confusion about VR. So I am going to try and clarify a few things.

1. '3D gaming or 3D TV didnt take off why would this?'

3D gaming does allow you to literally look behind you and still be in game in the expected place in that game. 3D gaming doesn't allow you to move your body over to avoid an obstacle, VR does. 3D gaming is limited to your screen, VR is fully immersive.

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

3. 'Its a Gimmick'. It might be but it has millions of dollars in interest from the leading venture capitalist firm in silicon valley. A few high profile people in the gaming industry quit good jobs to come work for something that is highly risky. And finally...games are already being developed.

4. 'Sony will make one'. I think it would be great for the industry if they did, but given that Oculus Rift was on the front cover of so many high profile magazines, that if Sony had something to say of serious substance they would have by now.

5. 'It will only be good if its for the consoles'. 1. because your eyes are so close to the screen and because of motion detection the screen MUST be 1080p at 60fps min in order to be viable long term and to avoid motion sickness. Preferable higher res than 1080p. 2. A full setup could involve Oculus, STEM system and maybe even an omni. That is a lot of USB ports guys.

I hope this clears up some things

4. Thats what Sony are going to do next month;)

I kind of hope so then I kind of hope not.

Reason I hope not is because if consoles become viable again then it will slow PC gaming progress down for another 7 years just like the last generation

#22 Edited by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

I hope Sony is bright enough to stay away from the VR this early. Its undoubtedly going to take off in the future, but technology that blinds people to the outside world and requires movement isn't going to be mainstream anytime soon.

#23 Edited by Jag85 (4962 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

The Virtual Boy isn't a good comparison. The red monochrome graphics and static screen was primitive even for that time. A better comparison would be the Sega VR, which had 3D colour graphics and head-tracking detection just like the Oculus Rift. I remember trying out the Sega VR for myself at the SegaWorld London arcade back in the 90's, and the head-tracking worked surprisingly well. I played with it for about 5-10 minutes and didn't feel any motion sickness, although that was apparently the main complaint about it (maybe because I was just an 11 year-old kid and couldn't tell). I think a big reason for the motion sickness was, like you mentioned later on, the lack of realism, with 1080p @ 60fps, back in those days. Ever since then, I always wondered why there wasn't anything like it since, until I heard about the Oculus Rift a year ago.

#24 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@CarnageHeart said:

I hope Sony is bright enough to stay away from the VR this early. Its undoubtedly going to take off in the future, but technology that blinds people to the outside world and requires movement isn't going to be mainstream anytime soon.

I watched a video of someone playing Skyrim with Oculus Rift and a Wii Mote setup. The rig he had to set himself up in to actually play it that way was cumbersome, and frankly it looked clunky and inaccurate. Their is a large number of genres that will never work with such a setup. It will be a neat way to play certain games at some point in the future maybe. But here and now? It looks like a cool add on at best. I wish I could live long enough to play with a full Star Trek like Holo Deck. That would be incredible.

#25 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

The Virtual Boy isn't a good comparison. The red monochrome graphics and static screen was primitive even for that time. A better comparison would be the Sega VR, which had 3D colour graphics and head-tracking detection just like the Oculus Rift. I remember trying out the Sega VR for myself at the SegaWorld London arcade back in the 90's, and the head-tracking worked surprisingly well. I played with it for about 5-10 minutes and didn't feel any motion sickness, although that was apparently the main complaint about it (maybe because I was just an 11 year-old kid and couldn't tell). I think a big reason for the motion sickness was, like you mentioned later on, the lack of realism, with 1080p @ 60fps, back in those days. Ever since then, I always wondered why there wasn't anything like it since, until I heard about the Oculus Rift a year ago.

actually anything older than 5 years is not a good comparison.

why?

because the technology they are currently using in the oculus didnt exist more than 5 years ago

#26 Edited by Insert-Coin (35 posts) -

If VR is bad then 3d videogame graphics must be and plenty of people have had motion sickness with them too.

#27 Posted by Jag85 (4962 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Jag85 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

The Virtual Boy isn't a good comparison. The red monochrome graphics and static screen was primitive even for that time. A better comparison would be the Sega VR, which had 3D colour graphics and head-tracking detection just like the Oculus Rift. I remember trying out the Sega VR for myself at the SegaWorld London arcade back in the 90's, and the head-tracking worked surprisingly well. I played with it for about 5-10 minutes and didn't feel any motion sickness, although that was apparently the main complaint about it (maybe because I was just an 11 year-old kid and couldn't tell). I think a big reason for the motion sickness was, like you mentioned later on, the lack of realism, with 1080p @ 60fps, back in those days. Ever since then, I always wondered why there wasn't anything like it since, until I heard about the Oculus Rift a year ago.

actually anything older than 5 years is not a good comparison.

why?

because the technology they are currently using in the oculus didnt exist more than 5 years ago

What kind of technology are you referring to? I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference between the Oculus Rift today and the Sega VR headset I tried out almost two decades ago... besides HD graphics, if that's what you mean.

#28 Edited by ojmstr (1328 posts) -

@CarnageHeart said:

I hope Sony is bright enough to stay away from the VR this early. Its undoubtedly going to take off in the future, but technology that blinds people to the outside world and requires movement isn't going to be mainstream anytime soon.

Its not early, people have been waiting for VR since the 90`s. it is confirmed that the ps4 can handle 1080p and 60fps and that is enough for the avarage consumer to experience good quality VR. I doubt Sony would release a VR headset that will literally burn your eyes like someone mentioned in here, this are just false rumors from people who are sceptical thowards VR. I have heard about people who have played VR games for hours without having no problem what so ever. And honestly i think the reason why some people are experiencing motion sickness on the oculus rift is because alot of these games are made from indie developers with little knowledge about virtual reality. Can`t wait to see what kind of VR game a gaming company like naughtydog would make with a little help from the tech department at Sony.

#29 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Jag85 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

The Virtual Boy isn't a good comparison. The red monochrome graphics and static screen was primitive even for that time. A better comparison would be the Sega VR, which had 3D colour graphics and head-tracking detection just like the Oculus Rift. I remember trying out the Sega VR for myself at the SegaWorld London arcade back in the 90's, and the head-tracking worked surprisingly well. I played with it for about 5-10 minutes and didn't feel any motion sickness, although that was apparently the main complaint about it (maybe because I was just an 11 year-old kid and couldn't tell). I think a big reason for the motion sickness was, like you mentioned later on, the lack of realism, with 1080p @ 60fps, back in those days. Ever since then, I always wondered why there wasn't anything like it since, until I heard about the Oculus Rift a year ago.

actually anything older than 5 years is not a good comparison.

why?

because the technology they are currently using in the oculus didnt exist more than 5 years ago

What kind of technology are you referring to? I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference between the Oculus Rift today and the Sega VR headset I tried out almost two decades ago... besides HD graphics, if that's what you mean.

1. cell phone graphics that can have 1080p in 5"...didnt exist then.

2. head tracking that weighs nearly nothing. you know it tracks your head movement right?

3. camera for torso movement...you know it does that right?

4. light weight components.

WHAT

THE

FUCK?!!

#30 Posted by wiouds (5347 posts) -

I still do not care about the stereo-imaging goggles coming out. They are not VR and there are other thing I am more excited about when it comes to gaming.

#31 Posted by commander (8300 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

There seems to be a lot of confusion about VR. So I am going to try and clarify a few things.

1. '3D gaming or 3D TV didnt take off why would this?'

3D gaming does allow you to literally look behind you and still be in game in the expected place in that game. 3D gaming doesn't allow you to move your body over to avoid an obstacle, VR does. 3D gaming is limited to your screen, VR is fully immersive.

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

3. 'Its a Gimmick'. It might be but it has millions of dollars in interest from the leading venture capitalist firm in silicon valley. A few high profile people in the gaming industry quit good jobs to come work for something that is highly risky. And finally...games are already being developed.

4. 'Sony will make one'. I think it would be great for the industry if they did, but given that Oculus Rift was on the front cover of so many high profile magazines, that if Sony had something to say of serious substance they would have by now.

5. 'It will only be good if its for the consoles'. 1. because your eyes are so close to the screen and because of motion detection the screen MUST be 1080p at 60fps min in order to be viable long term and to avoid motion sickness. Preferable higher res than 1080p. 2. A full setup could involve Oculus, STEM system and maybe even an omni. That is a lot of USB ports guys.

I hope this clears up some things

So excited for this, i'm going buy the virtuix omni, a vr head set, a vr gun, and priovr.

My lazy days are over

#32 Posted by commander (8300 posts) -
@Black_Knight_00 said:

Take 100 people and have them use VR goggles for an hour. About half of them either won't be able to see the 3D or will get dizzy or will find it straining for the eyes. Add to it that it's harmful for children and you'll see why it will never be an industry standard.

Even if it were to and all games supported it, do you really think you would be able to play all your games using the goggles? The typical hardcore gamer spends 3+ hours a day gaming: your eyes would melt off your face.

so much bs, if that was the case, the google glass wouldn't work either. Looking at a tv screen and using vr is the same thing for your eyes. The motion sickness comes from the framerate and resolution and especially when motions happens in vr that don't translate in your body in real life. Like when you're crouching in the game but not in real life. Or driving a car and standing still. It's basically the same as car sickness. Not everyone has that, and the ones who have just avoid doing stuff with the vr that they don't do with their body. A virtuix omni, priovr or kinect solves that easily, it doesn't only solve the sickness it's also what make vr true vr.

Also the goggles don't need to have 3d, a screen that cover your view can already have the same effect. The 3d effect can already be made withouth 3d tech in the vr goggles, that could also be a problem for some people.

But eyes melt off?, you sound like an old man that was scared of the first tv.

#33 Posted by Jag85 (4962 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Jag85 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Jag85 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

2. 'They already tried in back in the 90s' 1995 to be exact. In 1995 Blockbuster had VHS tapes then and they were a bit recultant to rent out DVDs until the market proved better. Blockbuster, VHS tapes and DVDs were all smashing hits that are gone or soon to be gone. Comparing VR of today to Virtual Boy is silly.

The Virtual Boy isn't a good comparison. The red monochrome graphics and static screen was primitive even for that time. A better comparison would be the Sega VR, which had 3D colour graphics and head-tracking detection just like the Oculus Rift. I remember trying out the Sega VR for myself at the SegaWorld London arcade back in the 90's, and the head-tracking worked surprisingly well. I played with it for about 5-10 minutes and didn't feel any motion sickness, although that was apparently the main complaint about it (maybe because I was just an 11 year-old kid and couldn't tell). I think a big reason for the motion sickness was, like you mentioned later on, the lack of realism, with 1080p @ 60fps, back in those days. Ever since then, I always wondered why there wasn't anything like it since, until I heard about the Oculus Rift a year ago.

actually anything older than 5 years is not a good comparison.

why?

because the technology they are currently using in the oculus didnt exist more than 5 years ago

What kind of technology are you referring to? I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference between the Oculus Rift today and the Sega VR headset I tried out almost two decades ago... besides HD graphics, if that's what you mean.

1. cell phone graphics that can have 1080p in 5"...didnt exist then.

2. head tracking that weighs nearly nothing. you know it tracks your head movement right?

3. camera for torso movement...you know it does that right?

4. light weight components.

WHAT

THE

FUCK?!!

1. That's what I said. The biggest difference today is that we have 1080p HD graphics.

2. You do realize that I already said the Sega VR headset I tried in the 90's tracks your head movement, right? It was pretty spot-on as well, with hardly any noticeable lag.

3. Yes, I saw a video demonstrating that. It's an interesting innovation, but it's a separate add-on that works in conjunction with the Oculus Rift.

4. The Sega VR was not heavy at all. I was an 11 year-old kid when I tried it, and it didn't feel heavy to me at all, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be heavy for adults.

Like I already said, much of the VR technology was already around two decades ago, but the state of 3D graphics back then was just too primitive to go along well with the VR technology, causing motion sickness (although I didn't personally feel it with the Sega VR).

#34 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:
@Black_Knight_00 said:

Take 100 people and have them use VR goggles for an hour. About half of them either won't be able to see the 3D or will get dizzy or will find it straining for the eyes. Add to it that it's harmful for children and you'll see why it will never be an industry standard.

Even if it were to and all games supported it, do you really think you would be able to play all your games using the goggles? The typical hardcore gamer spends 3+ hours a day gaming: your eyes would melt off your face.

so much bs, if that was the case, the google glass wouldn't work either. Looking at a tv screen and using vr is the same thing for your eyes. The motion sickness comes from the framerate and resolution and especially when motions happens in vr that don't translate in your body in real life. Like when you're crouching in the game but not in real life. Or driving a car and standing still. It's basically the same as car sickness. Not everyone has that, and the ones who have just avoid doing stuff with the vr that they don't do with their body. A virtuix omni, priovr or kinect solves that easily, it doesn't only solve the sickness it's also what make vr true vr.

Also the goggles don't need to have 3d, a screen that cover your view can already have the same effect. The 3d effect can already be made withouth 3d tech in the vr goggles, that could also be a problem for some people.

But eyes melt off?, you sound like an old man that was scared of the first tv.

Funny, I never mentioned motion sickness, it's entirely unrelated to anything I said. Also you don't seem to know how 1) stereoscopic 3D works 2) what a screen a few inches from your eyes can do to them with prolonged esposition and 3) what hyperbole to make a point is.

#35 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@evildead6789 said:
@Black_Knight_00 said:

Take 100 people and have them use VR goggles for an hour. About half of them either won't be able to see the 3D or will get dizzy or will find it straining for the eyes. Add to it that it's harmful for children and you'll see why it will never be an industry standard.

Even if it were to and all games supported it, do you really think you would be able to play all your games using the goggles? The typical hardcore gamer spends 3+ hours a day gaming: your eyes would melt off your face.

so much bs, if that was the case, the google glass wouldn't work either. Looking at a tv screen and using vr is the same thing for your eyes. The motion sickness comes from the framerate and resolution and especially when motions happens in vr that don't translate in your body in real life. Like when you're crouching in the game but not in real life. Or driving a car and standing still. It's basically the same as car sickness. Not everyone has that, and the ones who have just avoid doing stuff with the vr that they don't do with their body. A virtuix omni, priovr or kinect solves that easily, it doesn't only solve the sickness it's also what make vr true vr.

Also the goggles don't need to have 3d, a screen that cover your view can already have the same effect. The 3d effect can already be made withouth 3d tech in the vr goggles, that could also be a problem for some people.

But eyes melt off?, you sound like an old man that was scared of the first tv.

Funny, I never mentioned motion sickness, it's entirely unrelated to anything I said. Also you don't seem to know how 1) stereoscopic 3D works 2) what a screen a few inches from your eyes can do to them with prolonged esposition and 3) what hyperbole to make a point is.

what we do know is that eyes will adjust to the developers desired visual which is why this technology is used to correct vision.

If it can correct vision problems its a bit presumptuous to assume it can hurt vision by displaying images correctly.

We also know there were many concerns about vision and TV when it came out as well as with computer monitors. Even if those claims where justified (which in some ways they were) the technology of CRT monitors is very different from today.

Additionally, the pixels are close together and latency faster

I think when we put all that together its odd to assume being 1 foot closer to your cell phone screen is going to damage your eyes more so then looking at a 27" monitor all day long 1 foot away.

Finally...I havent yet seen any on hands review of Oculus where the user says...meh..

#36 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

what we do know is that eyes will adjust to the developers desired visual which is why this technology is used to correct vision.

If it can correct vision problems its a bit presumptuous to assume it can hurt vision by displaying images correctly.

We also know there were many concerns about vision and TV when it came out as well as with computer monitors. Even if those claims where justified (which in some ways they were) the technology of CRT monitors is very different from today.

Additionally, the pixels are close together and latency faster

I think when we put all that together its odd to assume being 1 foot closer to your cell phone screen is going to damage your eyes more so then looking at a 27" monitor all day long 1 foot away.

Finally...I havent yet seen any on hands review of Oculus where the user says...meh..

Go read those links I posted previously, where it is explained how and why stereoscopic 3D is harmful.

#37 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

what we do know is that eyes will adjust to the developers desired visual which is why this technology is used to correct vision.

If it can correct vision problems its a bit presumptuous to assume it can hurt vision by displaying images correctly.

We also know there were many concerns about vision and TV when it came out as well as with computer monitors. Even if those claims where justified (which in some ways they were) the technology of CRT monitors is very different from today.

Additionally, the pixels are close together and latency faster

I think when we put all that together its odd to assume being 1 foot closer to your cell phone screen is going to damage your eyes more so then looking at a 27" monitor all day long 1 foot away.

Finally...I havent yet seen any on hands review of Oculus where the user says...meh..

Go read those links I posted previously, where it is explained how and why stereoscopic 3D is harmful.

I did..and the 3D that they are referring to is completely different in many different ways from the approach Oculus does

#38 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Go read those links I posted previously, where it is explained how and why stereoscopic 3D is harmful.

I did..and the 3D that they are referring to is completely different in many different ways from the approach Oculus does

How so?

#39 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Go read those links I posted previously, where it is explained how and why stereoscopic 3D is harmful.

I did..and the 3D that they are referring to is completely different in many different ways from the approach Oculus does

How so?

its pretty obvious if you have ever even once seen the screen from an oculus rift. Maybe look into it some?

3d gaming

oculus

In addition to be different in ways that is explainable by just looking at the picture above. Oculus can not be experienced by looking at a monitor. 3d gaming can

#40 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

How so?

its pretty obvious if you have ever even once seen the screen from an oculus rift. Maybe look into it some?

3d gaming

oculus

In addition to be different in ways that is explainable by just looking at the picture above. Oculus can not be experienced by looking at a monitor. 3d gaming can

Aside from your first link linking to nothing, is your point that Oculus Rift is not stereoscopic 3D?

#41 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -
@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

How so?

its pretty obvious if you have ever even once seen the screen from an oculus rift. Maybe look into it some?

3d gaming

oculus

In addition to be different in ways that is explainable by just looking at the picture above. Oculus can not be experienced by looking at a monitor. 3d gaming can

Aside from your first link linking to nothing, is your point that Oculus Rift is not stereoscopic 3D?

my first link appears to be fine.

So in 3d you have the red green and blue colors changed a bit and you have zero head tracking

In Oculus you do NOT have a change in the red green and blue colors and you have head tracking which reduces dizzyness.

So what Oculs does is take a standard image and concave it a little bit and makes those two circles you should see in the link.

I am not sure why people would think the effects of 3d and Oculus would be at all similar.

#42 Posted by commander (8300 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:
@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

How so?

its pretty obvious if you have ever even once seen the screen from an oculus rift. Maybe look into it some?

3d gaming

oculus

In addition to be different in ways that is explainable by just looking at the picture above. Oculus can not be experienced by looking at a monitor. 3d gaming can

Aside from your first link linking to nothing, is your point that Oculus Rift is not stereoscopic 3D?

my first link appears to be fine.

So in 3d you have the red green and blue colors changed a bit and you have zero head tracking

In Oculus you do NOT have a change in the red green and blue colors and you have head tracking which reduces dizzyness.

So what Oculs does is take a standard image and concave it a little bit and makes those two circles you should see in the link.

I am not sure why people would think the effects of 3d and Oculus would be at all similar.

yeah i don't think there's need for 3d since the screens cover your eyesight and the 3d is in what is projected on the screens. However i've never tried a vr set, but i'm extremely excited

#43 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD: Your first link links to a jpg file with an unrelated url...

And you keep going back to the symptoms (dizziness, motion sickness) as if they were the problem: they are symptoms. As I have explained a hundred times, the problem is that all stereoscopic 3D causes your eyes to defocus, assuming an unnatural posture which can be harmful under sustained use. You have not read the links I have given you, it is plain as day.

I'm done here, go read those articles or remain in denial, if you prefer.

#44 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD: Your first link links to a jpg file with an unrelated url...

And you keep going back to the symptoms (dizziness, motion sickness) as if they were the problem: they are symptoms. As I have explained a hundred times, the problem is that all stereoscopic 3D causes your eyes to defocus, assuming an unnatural posture which can be harmful under sustained use. You have not read the links I have given you, it is plain as day.

I'm done here, go read those articles or remain in denial, if you prefer.

ok no offensive but that was the most uniformed come back I have ever read on this subject.

Given that you didnt even know what the screen looks like in Oculus I suggest you do some research on Oculus specifically and come back to the conversation.

#45 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

ok no offensive but that was the most uniformed come back I have ever read on this subject.

Given that you didnt even know what the screen looks like in Oculus I suggest you do some research on Oculus specifically and come back to the conversation.

Praise from caesar indeed since you don't even know how 3D works

#46 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

ok no offensive but that was the most uniformed come back I have ever read on this subject.

Given that you didnt even know what the screen looks like in Oculus I suggest you do some research on Oculus specifically and come back to the conversation.

Praise from caesar indeed since you don't even know how 3D works

in all fairness you keep comparing 3D to Oculus and I keep showing you how its different. They are both 'stereoscopic 3d' but they are radically different. Once you do some research and understand how they are different we can then perhaps have a conversation. Not until then.

#48 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Praise from caesar indeed since you don't even know how 3D works

in all fairness you keep comparing 3D to Oculus and I keep showing you how its different. They are both 'stereoscopic 3d' but they are radically different. Once you do some research and understand how they are different we can then perhaps have a conversation. Not until then.

For the last time: Oculus Rift is stereoscopic 3D. Studies show stereoscopic 3D is harmful your eyes. End of story. Now keep running in circles or post pictures claiming that Oculus Rift is not stereoscopic 3D because you can use it on a treadmill.

#49 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Praise from caesar indeed since you don't even know how 3D works

in all fairness you keep comparing 3D to Oculus and I keep showing you how its different. They are both 'stereoscopic 3d' but they are radically different. Once you do some research and understand how they are different we can then perhaps have a conversation. Not until then.

For the last time: Oculus Rift is stereoscopic 3D. Studies show stereoscopic 3D is harmful your eyes. End of story. Now keep running in circles or post pictures claiming that Oculus Rift is not stereoscopic 3D because you can use it on a treadmill.

incorrect for reasons I have explained more than once.

#50 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18805 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Praise from caesar indeed since you don't even know how 3D works

in all fairness you keep comparing 3D to Oculus and I keep showing you how its different. They are both 'stereoscopic 3d' but they are radically different. Once you do some research and understand how they are different we can then perhaps have a conversation. Not until then.

For the last time: Oculus Rift is stereoscopic 3D. Studies show stereoscopic 3D is harmful your eyes. End of story. Now keep running in circles or post pictures claiming that Oculus Rift is not stereoscopic 3D because you can use it on a treadmill.

incorrect for reasons I have explained more than once.

You haven't explained anything: you linked to two pictures that have nothing to do with anything.