Edited by user Wednesday, April 6, 2016 8:39:02 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your HotHardware Forums forum account, or Register a new forum account.
I mean, if you have $4k, you can buy a Hololens eventually (Microsoft's VR "thing") because it has the PC built in!
Sony's Playstation VR seems nice, but it's biggest drawbacks for me include being console limited and those horrible Playstation Move controllers which simply don't impress me. The current generation of console gaming simply does not impress me, so limiting one's VR experience to an ultimately doomed platform (think Sony won't make you upgrade your VR kit once they release the PS5 or whatever?) simply strikes me as misguided. My media center is home to a wide variety of consoles (Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Gamecube, Wii, Genesis, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, and 360) but features none of the current gen systems simply because they failed to bring anything to the table, even compared to a modest budget gaming PC.
As for all of the pseudo-VR headsets out there that use smartphones: No. Just no. Unless you're dealing with a very, very high end phone, the refresh rate alone is enough to ruin any sense of immersiveness your VR experience might have had.
So the big names that everyone is debating are the Oculus Rift and the HTC Vive. Spec for Spec, they share a LOT in common. OLED displays, 2160x1200 resolution, 90Hz refresh rate, 110 degree field of view, built in sound and microphone, HDMI, USB 2.0 & 3.0 -- all good stuff.
But the real difference comes with down to compatibility and play area... The Rift has a tracking area of 5 feet by 11 feet, whereas the Vive offers up to 15x15 feet of freedom - allowing you to scale your track area to your room, and offering you the potential for a higher quality (less tracking glitches as your controllers leave the tracking area less often than they would in a small space) experience overall.
But like I said, compatibility weighs into this as well. The Rift will only accept the Oculus Touch controller or the xbox one controller -- whereas the Vive accepts not only the SteamVR controller, but any PC compatible gamepad. The Rift runs on the "Oculus Home" platform (which I'll akin to installing yet another digital distribution library on your PC when you already have one that holds 99% of your games and doesn't cause you any issues), whereas the Vive utilizes SteamVR.
And for anyone who hasn't played with SteamVR yet, it is really just part of Steam - something virtually every PC gamer already has. So it's minimally invasive, which is a very good thing.
And perhaps things like compatibility and open formats matter less to w[censored]ver ends up reading this than it does to me, but I whole heartedly believe in the PERSONAL aspect of personal computers and I really enjoy the freedom of decided which controller I like best, how big my playable area is, etc, etc. I didn't spend over three grand building someone else's machine, I built *my* computer, my way, so being having my freedoms over both hardware and software limited just doesn't sit well with me.
I just looked that thing up. 3K.. for that I can build a high end PC and do a lot more. But, it does look like a blast to play with.
My biggest problem is, I'm more of a MMO player. So hoping a MMO would fit in with VR somewhere, where I can use my KB and Mouse but have a large immersive experience.
I honestly can't see a place for an MMO in VR. Most MMOs are 3rd person, so if you REALLY want a VR experience, use the SteamVR/HTC Vive so that you can use the movie theater like experience in VR. It would appear as if you were in the middle of a movie theater and your game would be on screen :P I really depends on your preferences though. MMOs would work better on a normal screen to see what is going on easier.
I'm not sure about that, actually. Maybe not a western made MMORPG like WoW, but I can definately see a JRPG adopting this -- in fact I do believe I overheard the guy at Gamestop talking about Sony working to develop a Sword Art Online game for Playstation VR; and if you remove the "Online" element from "Sword Art Online" the fans aren't going to be too happy... So I could easily see a cross platform VR MMORPG being made. I mean, heck, if we're banking on the Japanese to make a VR-centered MMORPG, I'd say that's a very safe bet. "Virtual Reality" may as well be it's own Anime Category; with .hack//sign (pronounced "Dot Hack Sign"), Sword Art Online, Log Horizon, Accel World, and Ghost in the Shell, just to name a few... I'd say very, very safe bet indeed.
Shoot, failing all else, if anyone wants to fund my subscription to HeroEngine, I know just the guys to make it happen, lol.
I did some marketing for Nyxio. They sent me http://nyxio.com/products/venture/
It was pretty good. It was their first version release. Watching a non-action movie was good, but gaming was horrendous.
I want something similar but with a wider FOV. I did have a 3d Projector that was pretty awesome. But MAN did it put out some heat. 80" 3d gaming TV on my wall was pretty cool. But I didn't like 3D titles. too gimmicky.
There is a difference between VR, 3D and 2D. 2D is flat onscreen, 3D is when it protrudes from the screen and VR is 2D. VR is 2D because it is seems everything is aroud you, but it uses flat screens to project images onto your eyes without distraction for immersion. You can still gauge distance if it has measurable distance proportionate to the real world. That is why VR usually requires cameras, they sense the depth for you and then you play the pregenerated "room" or "level." It is mind- game and some tom-foolery going on with the eyes.
So with each eye being 2D, we only get 3D because of the offset of our two eyes. If you hold up a finger and then rapidly alternate looking at that finger with your left eye, than your right eye, and repeat; you'll see the finger move from side to side. Your brain is able to compile these two 2D images into a 3D image capable of depth perception.
This is what is happening in VR: Two 2D screens, each displaying input from one of two 2D cameras in game, spaced about 64mm apart (the same offset as pupils in the average human male). Sure, you are not actually in the room you're seeing through the VR headset, but neither are you actually in the presence of Minions when Watching Despicable Me in 3D at the theater.
All artificial 3D is done this way: two images displayed as one. Anaglyphic 3D (Red/Blue 3D), Stereoscopic (VR, or any other "screen per eye" style display), Polarized 3D (what you often see in movies these days, where each lens of the glasses filters one image from a set of two), and shutter lens 3D (where an expensive headset uses moving parts to sync one eye to every even frame of a TV's refresh rate and the other to every odd frame). Two images get displayed as one image, the glasses do the trick of separating it back out into individual images per eye.
Most VR headsets use a front facing camera not for the benefit of what you're doing in game, but to monitor your potential collision with obstacles in the real world. The Oculus Rift, for example, has no camera, and instead uses magnetic detection to try to keep you from bumping into things (which is one of the reasons the Vive has hurt fewer of it's players, lol).
Edited by user Tuesday, May 3, 2016 5:11:34 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified