Jump to content
rllmuk
TehStu

Xbox Product Name Placeholder (Project Scarlett)

Recommended Posts

Are there many actual bricks and mortars stores that have demo pods of VR stuff around? I mean, it's most definitely something that needs to be tried a bit before you pay the entry fee I think.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JoeK said:

Are there many actual bricks and mortars stores that have demo pods of VR stuff around? I mean, it's most definitely something that needs to be tried a bit before you pay the entry fee I think.

 

 

 

 Personally never seen one out in the wild! :)

 

I think Game have areas where you can pay to play I expect there will be VR headsets in there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Thor said:

Come back when you've actually tried VR. :coffee:

 

The VR market is growing, and this growth will only speed up as the convenience aspect of it (because @Mr. Gerbik makes a good point about that) is improved. Oculus have already eliminated the inconvenience of external cameras/sensors with inside-out tracking, and the Quest is already a fully wireless system. In a couple of years VR is more likely to be mainstream, not ebay fodder. 

 

 

 

And look at Sony's share in that! :) Looks like a steady growth pattern too. Think Sony were right to put some money into this and take a punt.... Time will tell... but I expect as more people start to actually experience it - the snowball effect will happen... and it will be the next big thing. Small headsets, wireless and being convenient will sort the adoption rate out. However I don't just think it will impact gaming - it will have an impact on computer use in general. 

 

Certainly a fascinating area to look at. Looking forward to getting an Oculus at some point and getting a dev kit to play around with. Then dreaming up a concept that will make me rich... :D 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thor said:

Come back when you've actually tried VR. :coffee:

 

The VR market is growing, and this growth will only speed up as the convenience aspect of it (because @Mr. Gerbik makes a good point about that) is improved. Oculus have already eliminated the inconvenience of external cameras/sensors with inside-out tracking, and the Quest is already a fully wireless system. In a couple of years VR is more likely to be mainstream, not ebay fodder. 

 

 

 

With the exception of Oculus this year due to the launch of new hardware those are tiny rates of growth YOY. More telling is the anaemic software sales. Despite an installed base of 5 million headsets and growing, PSVR exclusive software sells pitiful amounts. It's like when Kinect hardware sold millions but Kinect exclusive software sold like crap for the most part. It just wasn't worth devs catering to that tiny market.

 

As for trying VR, I owned PSVR and also tried VIVE in a properly set up studio with padded walls and more space than most people would ever realistically have in their home and both experiences didn't convince me. VIVE was certainly the more impressive of the two, especially the controllers which were light years ahead of the move controllers. And experiences like Beat Sabre or Batman VR were fun. I remember playing one demo where all you did was walk out onto a plank overlooking a city and being terrified to step off. It can be impressive and give you different experiences for sure.

 

I don't think it'll ever be anything more than complementary though, even when it does eventually become more mainstream friendly. I always found that a) after an hour I was mostly done and wanted to rest and b) I never wanted to play it when I came home from work. 

 

People rightly espouse how immersive and interactive VR can be but it also makes it a very draining experience too. I literally never wanted to play it when I was even remotely tired because it is so all-consuming and stimulating while you're playing it that I had my fill of it very quickly. It's a VERY different experience to just kicking back on the sofa in front of the tv, requiring much more attention and energy. I can't ever see it as more than a side-dish for me on that basis. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the market is growing. You have a point about software sales, but it's a point I've already made in this thread regarding PSVR software this year. 

 

Also agreed VR is a very different experience to traditional gaming. In fact I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you've said, because you're simply stating your own personal opinion. Perhaps you and I are at opposite ends of the same scale when it comes to VR. You say you can't play VR for more than an hour; I can happily play Skyrim and Elite for hours on end in VR. There's clearly a middle ground there for the masses. It just needs the right tech at the right price point, with the right software. Half Life: Alyx isn't that, but it has at least made others (such as Broker) sit up and take notice. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thor said:

Come back when you've actually tried VR. :coffee:

 

The VR market is growing, and this growth will only speed up as the convenience aspect of it (because @Mr. Gerbik makes a good point about that) is improved. Oculus have already eliminated the inconvenience of external cameras/sensors with inside-out tracking, and the Quest is already a fully wireless system. In a couple of years VR is more likely to be mainstream, not ebay fodder. 


I’ve played four or five VR games now to various extents. The PSVR is ok, the Vive is better, and the Zero Latency stuff (now sure what the hardware is but you can walk around a large room in VR) was the best. But all of it is glitchy, ugly, uncomfortable and basic in terms of the actual mechanics. Which makes investing in VR as a consumer now a risky proposition. If we’re really only a few years from user friendly, comfortable headsets, why buy a shite one now?

 

Nothing I’ve experienced, including the large installation which a consumer could never afford, demonstrated anything that was worth paying £500 to play. I saw a second hand PSVR yesterday for £120 and didn’t even think that was worth it. It’s a colossal price for a tonne of glitchy, PS2 looking demos.

 

3 hours ago, JoeK said:

Are there many actual bricks and mortars stores that have demo pods of VR stuff around? I mean, it's most definitely something that needs to be tried a bit before you pay the entry fee I think.

 

 

 

Game let you try PSVR if you paid them. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Broker said:

It’s a colossal price for a tonne of glitchy, PS2 looking demos

This is just silly now. You have full games like Skyrim and No Man's Sky, huge endeavours, and fully playable on PSVR with no limitations. Then there's Farpoint, and Blood & Truth, both full games (albeit smaller but still nowhere near little demos) that are made specifically for PSVR and are genuinely good. 

 

Your only valid comment is price. Yes, it's prohibitively expensive right now. That's going to change. However, the tech right now is most definitely not shite. That's just nonsense from you. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2019 at 00:24, Thor said:

Phil Spencer has been quoted as saying "Nobody's asking for VR on Xbox" which as patent bullshit.

 

I mean, he might have more info on this than you, but as noted above, I thought the VR bubble had burst. I'm not aware of much interest/hype around it anymore. 

 

On 30/11/2019 at 00:24, Thor said:

what a short-sighted muppet. He needs to go. He just about steadied what was a very rocky ship. But now Xbox needs a visionary, Phil Spencer clearly isn't one.

 

I dunno, he's led Xbox to being a real contender, gamepass, large numbers of studios, is popular with fans and seems to like games. 

 

I think most would say he's really good for Xbox. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his views on VR are perfectly reasonable. End of the day, there are plenty of folk within Microsoft who are working on the thing, so it's not as if it's going to be especially hard to use those resources into making an Xbox compatible one should the need arise. I'm far more keen on them pushing for a machine that just does great games first, gauge the market and sort things out as and when it happens. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Phil's been really good for X-Box. Time will tell if he's good for its future. Hey, I'm more than open to be proven wrong on this. The Xbox 360 remains my all time favourite console (and controller). 

 

I just believe Phil and MS's stance on this is short sighted. And yes, MS does indeed have people working on VR, they have Windows Mixed Reality as their VR platform, but it's not well liked - they're already behind the curve. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, footle said:

What did you play?

I’ve not been impressed by the sorts of things that get put up in “theme park”/“shared” vr spaces.

 

At Zero Latency I played some Zombie shooter and a VR escape room. I've also played about two hours of superhot, a few tries on beat saber, a fair bit of minecraft and some skyrim.

 

1 hour ago, Thor said:

This is just silly now. You have full games like Skyrim and No Man's Sky, huge endeavours, and fully playable on PSVR with no limitations. Then there's Farpoint, and Blood & Truth, both full games (albeit smaller but still nowhere near little demos) that are made specifically for PSVR and are genuinely good. 

 

Your only valid comment is price. Yes, it's prohibitively expensive right now. That's going to change. However, the tech right now is most definitely not shite. That's just nonsense from you. 

 

I'm not buying a £500 piece of hardware for four games, two of which I played years ago and seem to have no actual VR specific features whatsoever. The games I played all looked shit compared to the versions of those same games I've played on other platforms. The movement is incredibly glitchy, especially with anything that's tracking your hands.

 

It's great that you love it so much, but the idea that this IS the future is preposterous, especially when there's headsets on sale now, which the evangelists are constantly telling us are just magical experiences that everyone should be trying now, but that a tiny fraction of the market are buying and barely anyone is making games for. It looks exactly like Kinect, big plastic guitars and 3D TV's at the moment. There's a small group of people, all of whom have sunk a large amount of money into VR, who are obsessed with VR obviously being the future. The rest of the world, including most people making games, don't seem to give a shit. 

 

Like Kinect and 3D TV, there's also this weird idea that because this stuff is in a lot of sci-fi it's somehow inevitable. And yet these things show up to great fanfare after years of us waiting for the perfect version that will change anything. And then they die away until the next time some billionaire decides they might be able to make some profit on it. You know what else sci-fi movies have a lot of? Flying cars. But despite them looking cool in movies, they're actually a completely shit, utterly lethal and totally impossible idea. Or space colonisation. Which is a great idea, and obviously beneficial, but not even remotely viable with modern technology. The reality is that just because something looks cool in Star Trek or Blade Runner, that doesn't make it an actual good idea for a product. 

 

The holodeck is a cool idea. I'm completely immersed, can feel, head and touch things in the simulation. What we have at the moment is a phone screen strapped to our faces. Even if there's a holodeck in the future, it's shit for loads of things. What if I don't want to be my size? Or shape? Or limited to my physical abilities? It's hugely limited. It's a cool idea people might buy one day, but the only people convinced that the current VR offerings are THE inevitable future are people who've spent money on it already and have a vested interest in that not being wasted.

 

Still, maybe Half Life will swing things. You only really need one great game, and Kinect and 3D TV certainly never had any.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, footle said:

Sony are in a different position, but there’s a reason they’re not going to launch a PSVR 2 next year.

 

because no one's spending "console AND headset money" in 2020, better to spread the payments out?

 

Also, I thought MS  were onto AR in a big way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SeanR said:

 

because no one's spending "console AND headset money" in 2020, better to spread the payments out?

 

Also, I thought MS  were onto AR in a big way?


From everything I’ve seen from them I think they realise it needs a bit more time in the oven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vr is not either/or type thing,  I happily play it along side traditional flat screen gaming and I think it will be like that for most for the foreseeable future for most but cockpit style games VR comes into its own.  Flying or driving type games feel like something is missing on a flat screen for me.  I’m hoping Half life: Alyx does great things for Vr but not expecting it to be a mass market penetrating sellout.

 

I do think it’s a misstep MS not laying the foundations for VR from the get go and are opting to awkwardly shoe horn VR into their ecosystem down the line when it makes more commercial sense. 
 

After all they spent a lot of resources on backwards compatibility even though their data said only a tiny proportion of the market was likely to use it, so that’s a bit confusing.  Sony has got the right idea on this and have got something extra to offer consumers.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, simms said:

I do think it’s a misstep MS not laying the foundations for VR from the get go and are opting to awkwardly shoe horn VR into their ecosystem down the line when it makes more commercial sense. 

1) I totally assume that they are laying/have laid the foundations for VR in case it takes off - companies try to be forward thinking and this is a very obvious thing to future proof the XB2 on.

 

2) the Spencer quote doesn't say at all that they haven't laid any foundations for VR in XB2, just that they don't have plans to release their own VR hardware soon. Which seems sensible given how the market for VR games is right now and for the immediate future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

1) I totally assume that they are laying/have laid the foundations for VR in case it takes off - companies try to be forward thinking and this is a very obvious thing to future proof the XB2 on.

 

2) the Spencer quote doesn't say at all that they haven't laid any foundations for VR in XB2, just that they don't have plans to release their own VR hardware soon. Which seems sensible given how the market for VR games is right now and for the immediate future.

 

Possibly but thats your assumption and Sony will likely be ahead in this area by the time MS react and get to market with their own VR solution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, simms said:

 

Possibly but thats your assumption and Sony will likely be ahead in this area by the time MS react and get to market with their own VR solution.  

Yeah it could go either way. I'm just some random dude who thinks it's fun to guess at this stuff :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If VR hits critical mass, MS will license or buy a suitable PC technology. That's where most of the VR development is and given their current strategy is to allow play on multiple devices, makes perfect sense. They'd be able to roll it out quickly if needed. 

 

I think it's several iterations off something truly mass market though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JoeK said:

Are there many actual bricks and mortars stores that have demo pods of VR stuff around? I mean, it's most definitely something that needs to be tried a bit before you pay the entry fee I think.

 

 

Was looking at TV’s in John Lewis a while back and noticed they had an oculus set-up for testing. This was at Meadowhall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Broker said:

 

At Zero Latency I played some Zombie shooter and a VR escape room. I've also played about two hours of superhot, a few tries on beat saber, a fair bit of minecraft and some skyrim.

 

I'm not buying a £500 piece of hardware for four games, two of which I played years ago and seem to have no actual VR specific features whatsoever. The games I played all looked shit compared to the versions of those same games I've played on other platforms. The movement is incredibly glitchy, especially with anything that's tracking your hands.


I call false on zero latency being the dogs bollocks, then. I’ve not tried PSVR, but have noted that the machines used to demo Vive games tended to be the lowest possible spec: no supersampling etc, and obviously not using the much more graphically impressive oculus stuff for obvious reasons,

 

The rift has no problem whatsoever in hand tracking in superhot or best saber if it’s been properly set up. Today’s best of breed is something that uses hand tracking, or probably a flight/driving game for the additional reality: depth perception is something else, and not something that’s simply given by 3D.

 

but I agree that it’s not really ready for mass adoption.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG's 360 would be my physical entry point if it cost around £200, with 1440x1600 at 120Hz, built-in speakers, and featured next-gen wireless GamePad tech for the PS5/Scarlett. Valve Index is still a massively expensive brick on yer boat, so if that puts me — a person interested in VR — off, it ain't ready for the mainstream.

 

LG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think VR is going back in it's box anytime soon, so it makes sense for platform holders to factor it into their planning.

 

Like kensei, I think MS will eventually just come to some sort of arrangement with one of the established firms who have developed a mature VR solution for PC. Sony have been invested in this space for a relatively long time now, I can understand MS thinking it's not worth dedicating the resources necessary to develop something from scratch, which can adequately compete with Sony's next gen headset in terms of both hardware and software.

 

My sense is that VR currently enjoys a relatively small user base, but those users buy a lot of games. I've seen some reports which corroborate this and I know I own more than a dozen VR games myself. I don't know if it's a big enough audience to sustain development, but there are enough VR games on the horizon to keep me excited and announcements of new VR games seem pretty regular.

 

With Sony announcing that PS5 will support current gen VR headsets, I think the bar to entry will be very low next gen. As dedicated users upgrade to next gen VR, the market will be filled with a lot of cheap second hand, 1st gen headsets, making cost less of a barrier to entry.

 

Just from the gamers perspective though, I applaud Sony for sticking with it. Whether you want or like VR or not, surely it's good to own a platform which includes it as an option. PSVR makes up a huge chunk of my gaming hours these days, I'd be gutted not to see development continue next gen.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Thor said:

Preposterous? Limited? You've clearly made up your mind and have closed it to any other viewpoints. :coffee:

 

Says the guy who has declared a new type of screen as the inescapable future of an entire medium and refuses to even consider any other viewpoint on it. I've tried VR, and am still investigating it, you're the one who has decided that their sunk costs are going to trump logic and evidence every step of the way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Broker said:

 

At Zero Latency I played some Zombie shooter and a VR escape room. I've also played about two hours of superhot, a few tries on beat saber, a fair bit of minecraft and some skyrim.

 

 

I'm not buying a £500 piece of hardware for four games, two of which I played years ago and seem to have no actual VR specific features whatsoever. The games I played all looked shit compared to the versions of those same games I've played on other platforms. The movement is incredibly glitchy, especially with anything that's tracking your hands.

 

It's great that you love it so much, but the idea that this IS the future is preposterous, especially when there's headsets on sale now, which the evangelists are constantly telling us are just magical experiences that everyone should be trying now, but that a tiny fraction of the market are buying and barely anyone is making games for. It looks exactly like Kinect, big plastic guitars and 3D TV's at the moment. There's a small group of people, all of whom have sunk a large amount of money into VR, who are obsessed with VR obviously being the future. The rest of the world, including most people making games, don't seem to give a shit. 

 

Like Kinect and 3D TV, there's also this weird idea that because this stuff is in a lot of sci-fi it's somehow inevitable. And yet these things show up to great fanfare after years of us waiting for the perfect version that will change anything. And then they die away until the next time some billionaire decides they might be able to make some profit on it. You know what else sci-fi movies have a lot of? Flying cars. But despite them looking cool in movies, they're actually a completely shit, utterly lethal and totally impossible idea. Or space colonisation. Which is a great idea, and obviously beneficial, but not even remotely viable with modern technology. The reality is that just because something looks cool in Star Trek or Blade Runner, that doesn't make it an actual good idea for a product. 

 

The holodeck is a cool idea. I'm completely immersed, can feel, head and touch things in the simulation. What we have at the moment is a phone screen strapped to our faces. Even if there's a holodeck in the future, it's shit for loads of things. What if I don't want to be my size? Or shape? Or limited to my physical abilities? It's hugely limited. It's a cool idea people might buy one day, but the only people convinced that the current VR offerings are THE inevitable future are people who've spent money on it already and have a vested interest in that not being wasted.

 

Still, maybe Half Life will swing things. You only really need one great game, and Kinect and 3D TV certainly never had any.

That sounds a bit like you are stuck in the past before the future has even begun. The future isn’t some inevitable road map that’s been laid out by blade runner. It’s bubbles of innovative thinkers that set out to change the world - one step at a time. 
 

No it’s not there yet- but AR/VR (which at some point will converge) will get smaller, lighter and more immersive until it’s basically the main way people experience content. And I can see it dividing a generation in the same way email or computer literacy did. Lots of older people won’t take to it, but that’s not going to stop the generation below them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think VR is gonna take off guys, even Valve seem to recognise the only games still launching on it are ones that are being subsidised by hardware companies that have spent so long in development they've missed the peak.

 

We've also seen a lot of series revivals do big numbers, and then fall off massively after that when it turns out people were checking it out due to the buzz from old nostalgics and didn't actually like it that much - Deus Ex, X:COM, etc. I can't name a single series that's come back and actually been a consistent success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dirty Harry Potter said:

That sounds a bit like you are stuck in the past before the future has even begun. The future isn’t some inevitable road map that’s been laid out by blade runner. It’s bubbles of innovative thinkers that set out to change the world - one step at a time. 
 

No it’s not there yet- but AR/VR (which at some point will converge) will get smaller, lighter and more immersive until it’s basically the main way people experience content. And I can see it dividing a generation in the same way email or computer literacy did. Lots of older people won’t take to it, but that’s not going to stop the generation below them.

 

It sounds a bit like you've already bet on a future and desperately want it to come true. I never said that Blade Runner was an inevitability, I said I think people's blinkered certainty that VR is the future of games is influenced by the depictions of sci-fi they've seen over their lives, not any rational or practical assessment of the technology. I said it in response to multiple people in this thread asserting that VR was definitely the future and citing sci-fi sources as proof that it was inevitable that VR would be popular.

 

I think it's pretty generous to call these people "innovative thinkers" when they're recycling a failed idea from the nineties that was already lifted wholesale from Star Trek.

 

It's also really funny to see how many people in here are upset at people not impressed by VR will accuse anyone who doesn't like it of being closed minded, or in this case, just too old to be part of the new generation who all obviously love VR. Your opinion that VR will merge with the other terrible face screen idea and replace TVs is utterly insane, but you're 100% convinced, and obviously it's everyone else who is wrong because VR is inevitable. It's an extremely closed minded stance to take, and not really befitting someone cutting edge who loves VR like the kids.

 

This all really reminds me of motion controls. A few people who have invested in it and the people selling it are convinced it's the future, and they know this because they saw minority report/read neuromancer (delete as appropriate). Now they've invested in technology that comes nowhere near delivering the sci-fi promise that they were chasing, and they'll agressively defend that position with a complete unwillingness to consider anyone elses viewpoint.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.