Sorry, I don't agree. It's a gimmick only if you don't appreciate the immersion.
I can't imagine playing Xortex (a game in Valve's 'The Lab') on a 2D monitor. It just wouldn't be possible to even come close to replicating the experience.
Valve also has a new product called "Destinations" which is basically creation tools and a viewer for photogrammetry scenes. One of their examples is Mars, with a realistically rendered model of Curiosity on the surface (which itself is based on photos from Curiosity). It's the closest I'll ever get to walking on Mars. And being able to walk around an actual-sized Curiosity is quite something in itself.
Yep. TV's are not great at conveying radio plays. But, that's all people could think of to do with them initially. Turns out they are better for content like Game of Thrones. Phones and tablets are not great at playing deeply engaging games like Quake III, but people tried to make that work initially. Turns out they are better for shallow games to fill in spare moments of boredom where ever you are. VR is not good for a lot of games we are used to. This is the experimentation period where we get to learn what it can do differently and discover new styles of games that didn't make sense to attempt before.
> Yep. TV's are not great at conveying radio plays. But, that's all people could think of to do with them initially. Turns out they are better for content like Game of Thrones.
I get what you're saying, but I think that's a rather terrible way to contrast radioplays and content made for TV. The experience of watching "Game of Thrones" isn't that different from listening to the BBC radioplay of "Lord of the Rings"[r]. I think "The Wire" or "Generation Kill" might be better examples of things that I think work better on TV, than I can imagine them doing on the radio. Or maybe "The Expanse" or even "Firefly".
Doesn't mean I don't like "Game of Thrones", I love the adaptation - but with its many characters and demanding storyline (even for those of us that have read the books) - I don't know. Somehow, while it is a beautiful production, I think it could've worked with a similar script for radio.
I am really only willing to continue a conversation with someone that says VR is a gimmick if they have actually played through a number of room-scale titles. Mostly Budget-Cuts, The Gallery, Minecraft in VR, Audioshield, or something like that.
There is still a large sentiment that compares this technology to the Wii style motion controls, and they really aren't even close... at all.
There's the problem though. I don't think all that many people are ever going to get to play a room-scale title.
First there's the expense of the headset. Granted, it might come down a bit, but it's still a large expense on top of a console.
Second, there's the space that you need to play a Motion + VR game. It's not trivial for people to get that. A simple console + TV setup can fit in any tiny apartment around the world. Dedicating a whole room just to play a game? That's like asking people to move house just to play VR...
Even in my house which is fairly spacious, I'd still need to move around furniture everytime I want to play. It's just not going to happen.
Motionless VR, or at least, seated + arm movement VR, has a fair amount of potential however.
Eventually mobile phones will gain the power to provide compelling experiences, and tracking technology like Lighthouse (or low-latency SLAM tracking done by the phone) will allow for room-scale.
The headset itself will basically be a plastic holder with lenses.
Yeah, that solves the price issue maybe, but it doesn't solve the space issue for Motion VR. Even in quite expensive houses, you're still going to be moving furniture to play a game. It just doesn't have the same ease of use of sitting back on a couch playing with a controller. I just can't see Motion VR growing beyond a niche market anytime soon.
The best idea I've heard so far is VR arcades, that would be fun.
I do it in a fairly small apartment without moving any furniture.
Just because you're not able to do it, or unwilling to adjust a few things, doesn't mean others won't. HTC & Valve have sold nearly 100,000 Vives, Oculus probably similar.
> The best idea I've heard so far is VR arcades, that would be fun.
I'm waiting for laser tag arenas that are fully mapped in VR. Walking up real stairs while seeing them in VR... What do you call it when it's past room-scale? Building-scale?
Even with the initial bugs with Elite:Dangerous and the DK2, I have a hard time engaging with the game in 2d - even now that I have a 30" monitor. Being able to look "up" through the roof windows of the cockpit and admire the huge yellow sun (or whatever) hanging there, makes a world (universe?) of difference. As for the "gameplay" that they focus on (dogfights and the like), I couldn't care less. I'm happy to be a glorified trucker, if I get to do it in space :-)
I can't imagine playing Xortex (a game in Valve's 'The Lab') on a 2D monitor. It just wouldn't be possible to even come close to replicating the experience.
Valve also has a new product called "Destinations" which is basically creation tools and a viewer for photogrammetry scenes. One of their examples is Mars, with a realistically rendered model of Curiosity on the surface (which itself is based on photos from Curiosity). It's the closest I'll ever get to walking on Mars. And being able to walk around an actual-sized Curiosity is quite something in itself.