VR is cool. Nintendo doesn't care though.
Will Nintendo eventually go all in on vr or will portable games on 2D screens still be a thing 20 years from now?
Probably not.
Think it depends on what Sony does next gen.
Probably not.
Think it depends on what Sony does next gen.
I mean once you have portable headsets like Oculus is making and once those have video passthrough allowing them to work like AR, wouldn't that naturally replace handheld screens for most things?
I mean once you have portable headsets like Oculus is making and once those have video passthrough allowing them to work like AR, wouldn't that naturally replace handheld screens for most things?
Long term, it's hard to imagine that not happening. Maybe in just 5-10 years we will start to see that taking over. As long as there is a competent user interface.
But then, I feel like that might be too optimistic. :D
I mean once you have portable headsets like Oculus is making and once those have video passthrough allowing them to work like AR, wouldn't that naturally replace handheld screens for most things?
Well as long as the tech is made much better. I can't see VR headsets as they are replacing phones/ computers in any way, but if you can wear them easily and discretely, and still see the rest of the world well then maybe. I don't really get how VR would work in that case though.
Well as long as the tech is made much better. I can't see VR headsets as they are replacing phones/ computers in any way, but if you can wear them easily and discretely, and still see the rest of the world well then maybe. I don't really get how VR would work in that case though.
Imagine Google's AR glasses only way better.
- small discrete glasses
- glasses have video pass through to see everything
Biggest challenge is a good user interface.
Imagine Google's AR glasses only way better.
- small discrete glasses
- glasses have video pass through to see everything
Biggest challenge is a good user interface.
How is that VR though? I thought VR was supposed to take you out of the real world completely.
How is that VR though? I thought VR was supposed to take you out of the real world completely.
There's a bit of vagueness with mixed reality, imo.
The recent Oculus talk basically broke it down as:
VR mixed reality=blocking out the world, but pass through video possible.
AR mixed reality= see through lenses with effectively a video overlay.
I think the line really blurs in the middle, and in the future the difference will be more about application than hardware.
There's a bit of vagueness with mixed reality, imo.
The recent Oculus talk basically broke it down as:
VR mixed reality=blocking out the world, but pass through video possible.
AR mixed reality= see through lenses with effectively a video overlay.
I think the line really blurs in the middle, and in the future the difference will be more about application than hardware.
I see, well I can see some sort of VR or AR mixed reality taking over everything not so far down the line, but VR as we think of it now certainly won't.
It will be interesting to see if there's a battle between AR and VR for this space, it does seem like AR has a bit of an advantage at the moment.
I see, well I can see some sort of VR or AR mixed reality taking over everything not so far down the line, but VR as we think of it now certainly won't.
It will be interesting to see if there's a battle between AR and VR for this space, it does seem like AR has a bit of an advantage at the moment.
Tech wise VR is a lot better. AR is about adding images on top of the real world, but it can only add them "on top." It can't remove light coming in from the world. Could only be solved by fully redesigning AR optics.
VR with camera passthrough however has full control over the image. Not only can it display dark objects over bright backgrounds, but it can photoshop the world. A negative for VR is that other people can't see your eyes/face, but it'd eventually be possible to have VR headsets photoshop other VR headsets out of the image.
Software wise, AR games are not that great. Using the real world as a play space is gimmicky and doesn't have a big future imo. AR will be popular only for passive experiences like putting a virtual display on a wall or translating text. VR games are the way to go, even if it's just stationary with a controller.
Tech wise VR is a lot better. AR is about adding images on top of the real world, but it can only add them "on top." It can't remove light coming in from the world. Could only be solved by fully redesigning AR optics.
VR with camera passthrough however has full control over the image. Not only can it display dark objects over bright backgrounds, but it can photoshop the world. A negative for VR is that other people can't see your eyes/face, but it'd eventually be possible to have VR headsets photoshop other VR headsets out of the image.
Software wise, AR games are not that great. Using the real world as a play space is gimmicky and doesn't have a big future imo. AR will be popular only for passive experiences like putting a virtual display on a wall or translating text. VR games are the way to go, even if it's just stationary with a controller.
There's no doubt VR is better for gaming, but people won't want to wear VR headsets when walking around. In terms of 'taking over everything' I think there's no chance, glasses are as far as people will go. VR will never ever replace the phone, but AR glasses/ lenses probably will. Unless VR can basically become like sunglasses which you can easily slide on and off, but even then AR glasses would be more convenient.
There's no doubt VR is better for gaming, but people won't want to wear VR headsets when walking around. In terms of 'taking over everything' I think there's no chance, glasses are as far as people will go. VR will never ever replace the phone, but AR glasses/ lenses probably will. Unless VR can basically become like sunglasses which you can easily slide on and off, but even then AR glasses would be more convenient.
I don't think we are too far off from VR glasses being tiny, easily removable glasses.
I don't think we are too far off from VR glasses being tiny, easily removable glasses.
Well, we're definitely quite far from them being cheap enough. I suppose if you wanted to make ones which run just basic functions and not games then we aren't too far off.
There's no doubt VR is better for gaming, but people won't want to wear VR headsets when walking around. In terms of 'taking over everything' I think there's no chance, glasses are as far as people will go. VR will never ever replace the phone, but AR glasses/ lenses probably will. Unless VR can basically become like sunglasses which you can easily slide on and off, but even then AR glasses would be more convenient.
I'm thinking 10-20 years from now.
AR wouldn't replace phones imo because it'd be a worse experience. Screen quality on a phone will be better than the perceived screen quality of an AR phone for the foreseeable future.
Also I was thinking of this thread specifically for gaming. Will portable handhelds still exist with flat screens in the future?
I'm thinking 10-20 years from now.
AR wouldn't replace phones imo because it'd be a worse experience. Screen quality on a phone will be better than the perceived screen quality of an AR phone for the foreseeable future.
Also I was thinking of this thread specifically for gaming. Will portable handhelds still exist with flat screens in the future?
Maybe, I guess its tough to know at this point.
I don't think portables will exist for much longer, mobile is become better and better for gaming and then you have solutions like Switch as well. I don't know if VR will take over TVs though, if it doesn't get enough support it could just die off again. I think the general market isn't really that interested in it, and its a hard sell without having people actually try it.
I think the general market isn't really that interested in it, and its a hard sell without having people actually try it.
I think it's really hard to say for sure, what will happen.
Facebook is really dedicated, despite not meeting expectations. Even just a few weeks ago, they said they still plan on getting 1 billion VR users.
I'm not sure about Sony's dedication, but I've heard positive rumors. It'd make sense for them though. If PSVR is profitable, and their games are also small and profitable, it'd make sense for them to continue the current level of investment.
It's something that I worry about short term.
Long term, less so. It might be something that ends up happening, just way slower than anyone predicted.
Maybe, I guess its tough to know at this point.
I don't think portables will exist for much longer, mobile is become better and better for gaming and then you have solutions like Switch as well. I don't know if VR will take over TVs though, if it doesn't get enough support it could just die off again. I think the general market isn't really that interested in it, and its a hard sell without having people actually try it.
VR currently is very gamey. It's a theme park attraction essentially.
To move past that point, I think the quality of the experience needs to be improved. The headsets need to get to the point that someone without experience can toss one on and have it adjusted properly, and then play for hours in a stationary environment without getting sick or having the experience degrade.
I don't know if manufacturers share my priorities, but the tech to have a "perfect" casual experience like that is available today. We just need it to come to market.
It's amazing how fast VR is going to change, the next few years.
It's already changing really fast, but VR in 4 years is going to be a massive jump from now.
I have no doubt it'llbe the kind of jump that we see in 2 console gens.
On resolution, especially, Newell expects that, by 2018 or 2019, VR headsets will provide "higher [resolution] than just about anything else, with much higher refresh rates than you're going to see on either desktops or phones. You'll see the VR industry leapfrogging any other display technology."
Valve's Gabe Newell: VR could "turn out to be a complete failure" | Ars Technica (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/02/valves-gabe-newell-vr-could-turn-out-to-be-a-complete-failure/)
When I was just getting into VR, I remember Legend and I and a few others were discussing VR and AR on VGC I think.
And I remember Legend making a comment along the lines of one of the two is currently stronger than the other, because the one has the ability to emulate the other.
I said VR was able to emulate AR, with camera pass through. But then I started to wonder if Legend meant AR, as in AR was basically VR with a camera.
The discussion about the two reminded me of that. Was a bit relieved that my understanding of the two at the time wasn't wrong.
When I was just getting into VR, I remember Legend and I and a few others were discussing VR and AR on VGC I think.
And I remember Legend making a comment along the lines of one of the two is currently stronger than the other, because the one has the ability to emulate the other.
I said VR was able to emulate AR, with camera pass through. But then I started to wonder if Legend meant AR, as in AR was basically VR with a camera.
The discussion about the two reminded me of that. Was a bit relieved that my understanding of the two at the time wasn't wrong.
I don't think I've ever prefered AR over VR but I could have meant either thing with my comment. I did not care that much when oculus was first coming out. I think I only started becoming seriously interested once Crystal Cove was shown off.