Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

to steam we give our blind allegiance.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I don't like 3D, and think there are only a scarce few cases where it has actually enhanced a film, but at the same time, I literally can't conceive a vision of our world in 100 years time without holograms and stuff everywhere.

    Comment


    • #17
      Holographic images solve the reason 3D fails, you don't need glasses, it's why the 3DS was the most successful 3D item. It's the same as something that worked like a holodeck would solve the problems of VR. The technology will advance and change but in the form it is today it will never get anywhere near mainstream.

      On the US steam prices when we had to pay in $ steam was cheap, when they localised the store, the prices went to shit, steam is never cheap now, despite the fact they are based in a tax haven in Europe.

      Comment


      • #18
        I didn't need glasses for 3D on the 3DS and that was always switched off after a while.

        I don't think glasses is the answer for everything failing. VR is expensive, not as high a resolution as a flatscreen monitor and there isn't much content in comparison to traditional games.

        It just doesn't seem worth the leap to a lot of people. I remember always wanting to try VR in the 90s at the science museum, and never getting the chance.

        While Iam glad that VR has moved on and I got the chance to try it finally I think VR may fail if it isn't pushed commercially as I think it's not a big enough draw to splash the cash.

        It's a great immersive experience but for me it's got to keep wowing me for it to keep getting used. Mainly because I'm lazy ¬_¬

        Comment


        • #19
          This.
          As I said above, VR is a long way off even being more than niche (and decades off superseding traditional gaming, if it ever does).

          Comment


          • #20
            Yeah the 3DS did have problems for a fair few people if their eyesight wasn't 100% perfect, but it was a step in the right direction.

            VR tho the biggest problem is the price, but they are charging the price close to flagship phones that have a lot more technology in them, but then don't even match the quality of now common amoled screens in phones, it makes you wonder where they are spending the rest of the money when they aren't using the high end CPU and GPU found in the comparable phones, leaving the question where does the extra money go without processors and expensive wireless chips found in the phones.

            Comment


            • #21
              Everyone has a phone.
              Some people even have two.
              That's where the money went.

              Comment


              • #22
                Yep but if they used USB C to its full potential and concentrated VR over phone handset you target a way larger market, people want phones and will pay for flagship phones, so a 700-800 phone that people would likely already be carrying with a smaller cheaper accessory pack that enabled the transfer over USB C if we are to believe gigabit WiFi chips are incapable of the bandwidth, and put the phone in a headset, the phone makers would have a large secondary market and the user count would increase exponentially.

                The phones already have all the sensor suite chips and extras compared to a VR headset, they have actual processing suites built in, they have high quality screens with much higher resolution and DPI than the actual headset's.

                This is why I don't get the price of the likes of a Vive when a £300 tablet with more expensive parts in it can be sold for so much less. To me I guess I feel VR is just another market like keyboards and mice that has 2 identical products with different prices purely down to one having"gaming" in its name.

                VR could be cheaper and could be better and more widely used if it wasn't for Valve and Facebook fighting to lock out any other options that don't directly line their pockets. The Nvidia VR trick on GearVR has even got to the point Oculus tries to force the app to be flagged as malware, purely because it proves you don't need their over priced wired headset.

                Honestly I would love to see Google get daydream off the ground properly as it would moan any modern android phone could be a VR headset with reasonable priced accessories and a wireless connection, at the moment I'm connected to my router with my phone at 866meg, you honestly can't tell me that's not enough when even 4k only needs about a 20-35meg connection. But then my house is now connected from one story to the other by a range extender and it connects with near 0 latency at a link speed of about 1400meg making it actually faster than a wired connection.

                You can call me a luddite if you want but the technology is there to make VR more mainstream it just wouldn't line the pockets of the headset makers as much.

                Comment


                • #23
                  CCP has sold off their Newcastle office that was responsible for Valkyrie (there VR game) https://www.pcgamesn.com/ccp-newcast...e-sumo-digital

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    http://www.pcgamer.com/visceral-game...tar-wars-game/


                    I guess Star Wars and traditional gaming are failed products.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      But that says the game is having a significant change of direction, so that to me says the studio wasn't doing a good job.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Ahh. So when a standard gaming developer fails, it's because they were a bad developer. But when a VR developer fails, it's indicative of a fatal flaw in the entire industry.
                        I'm pretty certain there is a term for that kind of logic................

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The difference is one is a firm selling off its studio that deals with VR and the developer has no plans for a follow up or continuation, the other is a studio being closed down while their work is being kept but heavily modified to go the way the developer wanted it to.

                          This is the point one is a firm basically spinning out their VR support, the other is a firm not agreeing with the direction a department is taking so moved the project and cleaned out the trouble department.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X