General Streaming and VR Discussion

[Lord Mushroom]

14 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

I suggested no such thing.

Yes, you did. Or rather, you said it explicitly:

 

"Except that the market has become accustomed to consoles with a $500 at-launch price point.  There is no way in hell that either Sony or Microsoft would do anything to deliberately let that number slip in the public's mind now that the expectation has been set."

 

Selling a streaming box for less than $500 at launch would constitue doing something to let that number slip in the public´s mind. But apparently you don´t mean it, so let´s move on.

 

22 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Consumers may buy a cheaper but equally-good equivalent if one is available, but not always.

Not always, but almost always. At least when the difference in price is as great as the one we are talking about here.

 

22 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

The PS3 / Xbox 360 scenario also omits two details: one, that a fair number of PS3s were sold in their first 18 months on the market because they were the cheapest Blu-Ray player you could buy;

That just underlines the effect of Xbox 360´s low price on sales.

 

22 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

two, that many of the people who bought the Xbox 360 instead of the PS3 later bought a PS3 once it had reached a price point they were more comfortable with.

Sure, some would buy a $500 console A in addition to, or even instead of, a $50 console B due to its library of games or possible other unique features. 

 

22 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

saying, "consoles are sold at a loss," is utterly inaccurate and paints a very poor picture of how these things actually work.

According to an Xbox executive, they sell cosoles at a loss and have never made a profit on console hardware:

https://www.protocol.com/microsoft-confirms-the-xbox-hardware-business-loses-money

 

22 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

The technology to do this has been here for years.

Not to do it well, especially on a cheap device, which is what it needs to be able to do to be successful.

[Lord Mushroom]

On 6/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

Two problems with this:

1. No single network-connected activity drives infrastructure improvements, including bandwidth.  It is the aggregate of all traffic that makes this happen.  Gaming, Netflix, television, audio, mobile applications, cloud-based applications, and everything else from email to web browsing to ping - all of them and more are what drives how and when content transport and delivery is improved.  Yes, individual applications and / or types of traffic are taken into account in certain cases, but overall improvements rest on the back of the sum total requirements.
2. All of this costs money.  Unless there is a return on investment in terms of improvement for every layer of the delivery and transport stack, it's not going to happen. 

I don´t see how these are problems. Infrastructure improves even without game streamers´ help. Sounds like a sweet deal.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

Nor did I ever say that it would be.

I said going from streaming 1080p to 4k is a relatively small step. In other words, that it won´t take long. You disagreed.

 

But technically you are right, you didn´t say it. You communicated it using a picture of Picard holding his head.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

Something I would have been more likely to say would have been, "oh, yeah, it's gonna be really awesome at some point in the future when we get all the infrastructure and transport issues figured out, but the software is already here to do it,"

Funny how you would have thought infrastructure and transport issues could be figured out in the past, but not in the present.

 

Seeing as you have difficulties imagining a $50 streaming box reaching the market at a time when Google has already released such a box (although it will only stream properly shortly). And that you ridiculed me for saying getting to 4k is a relatively small step at a time when Stadia is already offering 4k. I think you would have said something like:

 

"Do you know how difficult it is to stream video, especially in 480p. The infrastructure investments required would be gigantic. Even if they did manage it, I have two letters for you: HD."

 

On 6/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

And yes, there are standards coming up behind 8K that are intended to surpass it in quality. 

I am not saying the development ends at 4k. I am saying 4k is so close to what our eyes are able to perceive that people won´t care when 8k arrives. In other words, not being able to stream 8k properly will not prevent game streaming providers from replacing expensive consoles and gaming computers even if they can play 8k games.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

I disagree.  So do the SD-to-1080 sales numbers

 

I agree that going to 720 was a considerable improvement (going to 1080 was less so). There is a clear difference. But it wasn´t revolutionary or something. The image just got a little sharper. Going from black and white to colour, that was a big deal.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

followed by the 1080-to-4K numbers.

It is hard to avoid selling lots of 4k screens when all the screens available for sale support it.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

Having said that, 4K still isn't dominant over any other resolution, so its ultimate success remains to be seen.

Once costs associated with offering 4k content gets low enough, it will become mainstream. People just won´t care much when it does.

[Shaggy the Atarian]

On 6/1/2021 at 8:18 AM, zzip said:

Anyone who said VR was about to take over TV was crazy. 

I think it was on the old NeoGAF forum where that sort of spin was going on. And I've worked with some people who are professionally invested in the tech to the point that they buy that sort of hype, but yeah, crazy.

 

Quote

The way I see it, the current VR is like the "2600 generation of VR",  it's novel, it's fun, it has to start somewhere  but it has ways to go still.   I remember how resistant my parents and others of their generation were to video games and how my dad complained about how the 2600 graphics looked like garbage.  Years later, they were playing games on facebook, which makes me laugh as I remember how anti-game they were.   This is the same kind of resistance I see in people to VR.   I've heard lots of stories how people's significant other's thing VR is dumb, until they are shown Beat Saber or something, then suddenly they have to fight over who gets to play it! 

Well, VR is a different beast really. With most game devices, I don't have to wear anything to use it. I look at a screen and use a controller to interact with what's on screen. With VR, you're wearing the screen, which also changes the dynamic of what games work with it. This ends up putting the player camera, something that is normally a kind of 2nd person perspective, onto the player's face. While there are some cool things that you can do with that, there are limitations as well. VR then has other limiting factors - price, health (vertigo/headaches/potential injury), compelling software. They can be overcome, but it depends on how much certain companies want to invest or can invest into it over the long run.

 

What VR has done has absorbed different fads and packed them into one - stereoscopic 3D gaming, motion controls, VR itself. Whether or not that will equal lasting success still remains to be seen, but doesn't indicate that it'll become the de facto standard for gaming.

 

In terms of games, yeah people can get crazy about a game like Beat Saber and invest in the tech - then they get tired of it a short time later and they have a nice $500-1000 paperweight since they never use it. Compare that to how many hours people can spend on Minecraft, and VR's a drop in the bucket, comparatively. Unfortunately, a lot of VR games aren't very good, and you can only copy the "stand in this spot and shoot at waves of things approaching you from all sides" so many times before it becomes boring.

 

Quote

Sony has been talking about their next Gen VR lately.   They sold millions of their first gen one.   After they got the PS5 out the door, they started talking about their next gen VR, teasing new info.   Oculus Quest I/II is often sold out.    Yes a lot of the me-too "mixed reality" devices have faded.   The concept of "Phone as VR unit" (Gear VR, Google) has faded, as it should!   And I don't think HoloLens was ever going to be a serious consumer product.  It was always going to be too expensive for that, and not as immersive as a VR unit.

You have to put it into perspective though. Sure, 5 million PSVR units is great, in and of itself. But it's very small when placed next to the PS4's 115 million unit sales. That mainly showed how big the current early/avid adopter market is, but it's not as massive as it really could be.

 

In reality, AR has vastly outsold VR, although it's sneaky - every smartphone is an AR device. AR has some similar problems in actually being used though, in that outside of concepts like Pokemon Go or QR Code scans, they haven't figured out much else to do with it yet that can draw in millions of sales. That said, there are some very interesting concepts in AR, and if it started to receive as much funding as VR has brought in, that could end up changing.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 9:40 AM, zzip said:

Video games had a bumpy ride as well trying to gain mainstream acceptance.   There is the well-known 83 Crash.   Some sources refer to another crash in the 70s too, between the saturation of Pong consoles and the adoption of cartridge-based systems.

That was about 1974-75, when most stuff on the market was just Pong knock-offs. Atari got lucky with Tank!, which helped save them from bankruptcy, then managed to get the home Pong units out the door. Then Breakout changed everything and gave them the boost that led to the 2600 and the other things that led to the Golden Age.

 

The thing with VR and why I don't jump on it as the Next Big Thing, is that it's been around for so long, that we've seen the same song and dance before. In many ways, it's like 3D movies, which also get this bump every few decades after everyone forgets about it. VR got started back in the 60s with the Sword of Damocles setup, but obviously the tech was far too crude for a mainstream product; then you had experiments with it in the late 80s and early 90s. Virtuality made a really solid go at it in the 90s, but then it all came crashing down until Lucky Palmer resurrected it. Yeah, the tech has improved a lot, but it's still nowhere near a lock that it's going to become how we all play games (same with streaming).  

 

On 6/1/2021 at 8:54 AM, Lord Mushroom said:

Going from SD to HD was not a very big deal

 

The HD switch required enormous changes in tech infrastructure including the billions spent on upgrading, or inventing new tech to handle the potentials of 1080p over 480i or less. 

 

Everything in media - movies, TV, video games, internet, computing - changed to adapt, which cost a lot of money. Developers had to spend more money to make games, as artists had to spend more time and learn new skills to handle the higher quality textures/models/techniques; Filmmakers had to update various aspects of production to shoot in the new resolutions; New wiring standards were produced (HDMI, Display Port); Factories had to retool their lines to manufacture the new technologies; ISPs have had to make massive changes and upgrades to handle the amount of data that is required just for HD video content and gaming and the government eventually mandated changes to OTA signals, all because of this switch. There was a "format war" in 2006-09 or so between HD DVD and Blu-Ray that was noticed by more than just tech bloggers. 

 

You also are forgetting that the switch changed aspect ratio standards. It's kind of a big deal to go 70-80 years at 4:3, then switch over to the 16:9 that HD came with. A lot of that baked-in some future-proofing for 4K/8K, so yeah that hasn't made as big a wave since it didn't need the hype like SD to HD did, and didn't see as drastic a change in the quality and style of footage, but adoption for 4K is moving along just fine and seeing grow.

 

I really have no clue how you can gloss over that and think it's no big deal, unless you were living under a rock the entire time or you weren't around before the switch happened. 

[Lord Mushroom]

23 hours ago, zzip said:

But where's the nearest data center?   Let's say it's 500 miles away?   Well the line from your house doesn't make a straight shot to the data center.   It goes to your ISP, makes God knows how many hops before it gets there,  and cable isn't layed without slack.   A 500 mile distance could mean it easily travels 1000-1500 miles of cable to get there,  that's almost 10ms added just by light-speed

10ms is very little. Also, don´t forget that multiplayer games already have to deal with distances.

 

23 hours ago, zzip said:

Let's say you are a rural customer and sign up for Starlink satellite internet.   Their satellites are 680 miles up,  that means your data has to travel 1360 miles just to get to your ISP, not counting the travel from your ISP to the data center.

Even then the distance itself isn´t a big problem. Also, landbased internet is constantly expanded to new locations, and people are moving from rural locations.

 

23 hours ago, zzip said:

I'm just one of many Comcast customers in the northeast,  many of us will be affected.  There was such an outcry that they postponed their plans until next year so hopefully fewer people aren't home using internet for work/school because of covid, but it's still coming and there isn't a better alternative around.

So even in this "worst case scenario" with a monopoly internet provider, the provider will just probably introduce a cap (reactions may anew cause them to reconsider), and even if they do, your high usage household is still below the cap. It doesn´t sound like data caps are going to be big problem for game streaming providers. 

 

On 6/2/2021 at 12:01 AM, zzip said:

Of course they will say that, because people always think they want "MORE" that doesn't mean they'll use more when available. 

No, but because more is available, they can increase their standards and still use as much.

 

On 6/2/2021 at 12:01 AM, zzip said:

More channels also lead to a reduction in quality. 

In average quality, yes, but the quality of the X best shows increases.

 

On 6/2/2021 at 12:01 AM, zzip said:

Cable channels used to be dedicated to Music, or History or Home and Garden or Scifi..  

I have a standard package (cable TV package, you disgusting pigs ?), and I can to a large degree choose which channels I want. I can choose between 7 music channels. I can choose them all if I want. There is also a history channel available, and it is not the History Channel.

 

Home and gardening shows are widely available on a variety of channels. There is very little sci-fi, though. Especially, high quality sci-fi. But there is a lot of that in streaming services.

 

I have had few channels, and many, and I definately prefer many.

 

On 6/2/2021 at 12:01 AM, zzip said:

Nowadays they run mostly reality programming, and when they find a semi-hit, whether it be Pawn Stars, Storage Wars, Trading Spaces, they just run endless marathons of it until you are sick to death of the concept.

There is a lot of crap being made. But one man´s crap is another man´s gold. Reality shows are cheap to make and quite popular, so they are worth making. I watch some myself. Deadliest Catch, Gold Rush, shows were people look for houses, competitive shows similar to Survivor and more.

 

I do hate the fakeness of reality shows, though, so I stay away from the ones I think are too fake. Many a time have I enjoyed a show only to find they were fake, and then they were ruined for me. Ax Men, three reposession shows, several flipping homes shows, some house hunting shows, some Gold Rush spin offs and more.

 

I agree that they show many shows too often. Once a week for a few months per year is optimal in my opinion. I think one problem is that people aren´t using their PVR´s recording capabilities as much as they should. So the cable channels are carpet bombing their lineups with their most popular shows to increase the chance you will pick their channel when you turn on the TV.

 

On 6/2/2021 at 12:01 AM, zzip said:

They same thing will happen to gaming on subscription services-- they will all be competing for a limited pool of money, so they'll go for the gaming equivalent of the reality show-- something cheap to produce and popular in the moment, they'll all work from the same template until these services are the same wasteland that cable became

I don´t think the games being produced will be changed much as a result of subscriptions. Although, as people will be able to play many games a little bit each, the average game will probably have a lower entry bar than before and be shorter. 

[Lord Mushroom]

4 hours ago, pacman000 said:

The 20% of people who make up 80% of the market will notice the lag.

I wouldn´t say 80% of players is enough to qualify as vast majority. 90% sounds more correct. And while the remainders may notice the lag, it would be so tiny they wouldn´t care much.

[pacman000]

I meant to use the Pareto principle, tho I might’ve stated it poorly & misapplied it.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

 

Just trying to say that the people most likely to buy a lot of games will most likely care about latency.

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

The HD switch required enormous changes in tech infrastructure including the billions spent on upgrading, or inventing new tech to handle the potentials of 1080p over 480i or less. 

 

Everything in media - movies, TV, video games, internet, computing - changed to adapt, which cost a lot of money. Developers had to spend more money to make games, as artists had to spend more time and learn new skills to handle the higher quality textures/models/techniques; Filmmakers had to update various aspects of production to shoot in the new resolutions; New wiring standards were produced (HDMI, Display Port); Factories had to retool their lines to manufacture the new technologies; ISPs have had to make massive changes and upgrades to handle the amount of data that is required just for HD video content and gaming and the government eventually mandated changes to OTA signals, all because of this switch. There was a "format war" in 2006-09 or so between HD DVD and Blu-Ray that was noticed by more than just tech bloggers. 

I meant to consumers.

[+x=usr(1536)]

Here's the thing (and apologies in advance to everyone for the scrolling needed to get to the completion of this thought):

 

5 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Yes, you did. Or rather, you said it explicitly:

 

"Except that the market has become accustomed to consoles with a $500 at-launch price point.  There is no way in hell that either Sony or Microsoft would do anything to deliberately let that number slip in the public's mind now that the expectation has been set."

 

Selling a streaming box for less than $500 at launch would constitue doing something to let that number slip in the public´s mind. But apparently you don´t mean it, so let´s move on.

 

Not always, but almost always. At least when the difference in price is as great as the one we are talking about here.

 

That just underlines the effect of Xbox 360´s low price on sales.

 

Sure, some would buy a $500 console A in addition to, or even instead of, a $50 console B due to its library of games or possible other unique features. 

 

According to an Xbox executive, they sell cosoles at a loss and have never made a profit on console hardware:

https://www.protocol.com/microsoft-confirms-the-xbox-hardware-business-loses-money

 

Not to do it well, especially on a cheap device, which is what it needs to be able to do to be successful.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I don´t see how these are problems. Infrastructure improves even without game streamers´ help. Sounds like a sweet deal.

 

I said going from streaming 1080p to 4k is a relatively small step. In other words, that it won´t take long. You disagreed.

 

But technically you are right, you didn´t say it. You communicated it using a picture of Picard holding his head.

 

Funny how you would have thought infrastructure and transport issues could be figured out in the past, but not in the present.

 

Seeing as you have difficulties imagining a $50 streaming box reaching the market at a time when Google has already released such a box (although it will only stream properly shortly). And that you ridiculed me for saying getting to 4k is a relatively small step at a time when Stadia is already offering 4k. I think you would have said something like:

 

"Do you know how difficult it is to stream video, especially in 480p. The infrastructure investments required would be gigantic. Even if they did manage it, I have two letters for you: HD."

 

I am not saying the development ends at 4k. I am saying 4k is so close to what our eyes are able to perceive that people won´t care when 8k arrives. In other words, not being able to stream 8k properly will not prevent game streaming providers from replacing expensive consoles and gaming computers even if they can play 8k games.

 

 

I agree that going to 720 was a considerable improvement (going to 1080 was less so). There is a clear difference. But it wasn´t revolutionary or something. The image just got a little sharper. Going from black and white to colour, that was a big deal.

 

It is hard to avoid selling lots of 4k screens when all the screens available for sale support it.

 

Once costs associated with offering 4k content gets low enough, it will become mainstream. People just won´t care much when it does.

I'm not going to continue investing my time and effort in responses to you on these subjects when all that it results in is what I say being taken out of context by you and subsequently used to try to prove points that you clearly do not have a firm grasp of.

 

How you appear to think that these things work vs. how I (and others here) have seen it work - firsthand - are two completely different things.  By all means feel free to hang on to whatever delusions you may have in this regard, but reality is significantly different.  If you can't accept that, it's not my (or anyone else's) problem.

 

Hope this helps!

Edited June 3, 2021 by x=usr(1536)

[Shaggy the Atarian]

2 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I meant to consumers.

Lol, and none of that meant anything to consumers - whom that all affected directly? You once again are demonstrating that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I don't know what you use for your sources, but you really need to get some new ones.

 

 

 

[+x=usr(1536)]

12 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

I don't know what you use for your sources, but you really need to get some new ones.

To be fair, deep bonghits are one type of source.

[Lord Mushroom]

11 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Lol, and none of that meant anything to consumers - whom that all affected directly?

I didn´t say it didn´t mean anything. I have even stretched myself to agree it was a fairly big deal. And to clarify further, I am talking about the improvements experienced by consumers, not the changes consumers had to make to get those improvements. 

 

By the way, I was around when the switch happened, and I wasn´t living under a rock at the time. I still have some channels in SD. There is a difference, but it is not that big.

[Lord Mushroom]

11 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

To be fair, deep bonghits are one type of source.

I see you are out of arguments, so now you turn to insults. I am looking forward to the many jokes and memes we are probably about to witness. I don´t like being proven wrong either, but when I am, I admit it (begrudgingly). You should try it some time.

[zzip]

15 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

I think it was on the old NeoGAF forum where that sort of spin was going on. And I've worked with some people who are professionally invested in the tech to the point that they buy that sort of hype, but yeah, crazy.

I'm sure there were some,  but I saw more people on the opposite end of that-   anti-VR simply because they were afraid it was about to destroy conventional video gaming.

 

15 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

What VR has done has absorbed different fads and packed them into one - stereoscopic 3D gaming, motion controls, VR itself. Whether or not that will equal lasting success still remains to be seen, but doesn't indicate that it'll become the de facto standard for gaming.

Yes, I've made this point myself.   On their own, motion controls,  3D glasses are kind of gimmicky.   But when mixed with VR they become compelling.  Like for a 3D movie they can make objects seemingly jump out at you,  but they can't make them go off the screen.   VR follows your head movements so that the entire world around you appears to be in 3D,  motion controls allow you to reach out an pick up objects,  you can aim at something simply by pointing at it, which is a much more natural feeling than aiming with a thumbstick or a mouse can ever be.

 

16 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

In terms of games, yeah people can get crazy about a game like Beat Saber and invest in the tech - then they get tired of it a short time later and they have a nice $500-1000 paperweight since they never use it. Compare that to how many hours people can spend on Minecraft, and VR's a drop in the bucket, comparatively. Unfortunately, a lot of VR games aren't very good, and you can only copy the "stand in this spot and shoot at waves of things approaching you from all sides" so many times before it becomes boring.

"Stand in one spot and shoot at waves" is not even typical of VR games.   In the beginning there was a lot of that because developers were afraid to add motion for fear of causing motion sickness..   But as VR players got accustumed to VR motion, they demanded more full-motion games.  Now there are a lot more options:  Minecraft itself can be played entirely in VR, as can other popular games like Skyrim, No Man's Sky, Borderlands.  There's driving games, flying games, wingsuit simulation games, social games, pinball games where you feel like you are standing in front of an actual pinball machine.  Horror games are on a whole other level in VR.   It's also not limited to 1st person games.   3rd person platform games work surprisingly well in VR.   "Astro Bot Rescue Mission" is a 3rd person platformer that many people think is one of the best-realized VR games to date.

 

16 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

You have to put it into perspective though. Sure, 5 million PSVR units is great, in and of itself. But it's very small when placed next to the PS4's 115 million unit sales. That mainly showed how big the current early/avid adopter market is, but it's not as massive as it really could be.

Exactly, but it has to start somewhere.   The first videogame consoles weren't selling anywhere close to 100 million units.   People have to get used to the concept, and there needs to be enough hit games to keep people coming in.   VR needs more "Beat Sabers".

 

16 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

The thing with VR and why I don't jump on it as the Next Big Thing, is that it's been around for so long, that we've seen the same song and dance before. In many ways, it's like 3D movies, which also get this bump every few decades after everyone forgets about it. VR got started back in the 60s with the Sword of Damocles setup, but obviously the tech was far too crude for a mainstream product; then you had experiments with it in the late 80s and early 90s. Virtuality made a really solid go at it in the 90s, but then it all came crashing down until Lucky Palmer resurrected it. Yeah, the tech has improved a lot, but it's still nowhere near a lock that it's going to become how we all play games (same with streaming).  

It has been around in various forms for around a century,  but this is the first time the tech has come together and can produce actually immersive interactive worlds with decent graphics.   Of course it isn't quite seemless yet, and next generation and the generation after will keep improving the experience.   It's not going to completely replace TV games anytime soon, but it should continue to grow as more compelling VR experiences are created.

 

[Mockduck]

The most recent gen of VR was almost there, but the pile of plastic on top of your head and not really all that great tracking combined with relatively low resolution (for PSVR, for example) and either "screen door" or other impediments totally made it a step closer but not there yet. I was gung ho on VR last gen when it started, but have to admit I barely had anything amounting to a good experience with it outside of a few unique cool things. Those things were great! But totally VR isn't there yet. That said it seems possible the next gen of VR might be the tipping point. 

[youxia]

[zzip]

28 minutes ago, Mockduck said:

The most recent gen of VR was almost there, but the pile of plastic on top of your head and not really all that great tracking combined with relatively low resolution (for PSVR, for example) and either "screen door" or other impediments totally made it a step closer but not there yet. I was gung ho on VR last gen when it started, but have to admit I barely had anything amounting to a good experience with it outside of a few unique cool things. Those things were great! But totally VR isn't there yet. That said it seems possible the next gen of VR might be the tipping point. 

It varies,  the biggest weakness of the PSVR system is the PS4 itself..  games looking low-res blurry is indicative that PS4 can't render the game in high quality AND maintain a high-enough frame rate.   PS5 makes some of those low-res/blurry games look much better on the same headset

 

That said, there are some VR games that look really good even on PS4--  Wipeout, Moss, Astro Bot to name a few. 

 

Now the Move system is pretty ancient at this point, and is the cause of a lot of tracking issues.   Glad Sony has shown a new motion control scheme for next gen VR

[Mockduck]

40 minutes ago, zzip said:

It varies,  the biggest weakness of the PSVR system is the PS4 itself..  games looking low-res blurry is indicative that PS4 can't render the game in high quality AND maintain a high-enough frame rate.   PS5 makes some of those low-res/blurry games look much better on the same headset

 

That said, there are some VR games that look really good even on PS4--  Wipeout, Moss, Astro Bot to name a few. 

 

Now the Move system is pretty ancient at this point, and is the cause of a lot of tracking issues.   Glad Sony has shown a new motion control scheme for next gen VR

Yup, PSVR was super-hampered by using the company's truly terrible Move controllers. Yeah, some games looked ok, but at the best case you are talking 720p output, and often less. 

[Shaggy the Atarian]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

"Stand in one spot and shoot at waves" is not even typical of VR games.   In the beginning there was a lot of that because developers were afraid to add motion for fear of causing motion sickness..   But as VR players got accustumed to VR motion, they demanded more full-motion games.  Now there are a lot more options:  ...There's driving games, flying games, wingsuit simulation games, social games, pinball games where you feel like you are standing in front of an actual pinball machine.  Horror games are on a whole other level in VR.   It's also not limited to 1st person games.   3rd person platform games work surprisingly well in VR.  

 

Exactly, but it has to start somewhere.   The first videogame consoles weren't selling anywhere close to 100 million units.   People have to get used to the concept, and there needs to be enough hit games to keep people coming in.   VR needs more "Beat Sabers".

I didn't say there aren't compelling experiences, just that it's still a long ways off and not a guarantee that it will become the de facto standard in gaming. VR needing more Beat Sabers is far easier said than done (funny enough, that's a "stand in one spot" game  there are many others, including the pinball titles you mention, most games with "simulator" or "trainer" in the name, Vader Immortal, etc.), it's like saying that you just need more sales to be a success - well, yeah. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Just like with the Wii, WiiU, Kinect, & Move - there was more potential that could've been tapped out of those gimmicks, but outside of some exceptions, the hits didn't materialize and we're back to more traditional controllers with gyro controls being used every once in a while.  

 

Quote

"Astro Bot Rescue Mission" is a 3rd person platformer that many people think is one of the best-realized VR games to date.

Yeah, it was well done, but it also hasn't become a "Beat Saber" VR seller either. Most people haven't heard of it.

 

Quote

Minecraft itself can be played entirely in VR, as can other popular games like Skyrim, No Man's Sky, Borderlands. 

 

Tacking VR onto big properties is a nice way to reward those who bought into the tech already, but it's not necessarily causing people to drop everything and invest in VR either. Like you said, it needs more unique titles that become tech sellers, but just saying/hoping for that doesn't make it devs have those epiphanies needed to make it happen.

 

Has anyone tried using a VR headset on their VCS? Perhaps that would make it slightly more compelling

[Shaggy the Atarian]

On 5/29/2021 at 11:40 AM, Lord Mushroom said:

I think it stopped working due to a technical issue of sorts. It was a case of bad programming, or something, from the people who made the game. Atari promised to fix it, but that never happened.

Ok, I got a response from one of the game developers on Minimum (he is now a professor of Game Design at Purdue U.), and since I promised I'd share, here you go. HH that he refers to is Human Head Studios (now defunct); He later added in the chat that Atari is "a truly pathetic operation" that showed how desperate HH was for work so they could stay afloat:

 

 

It's really too bad - Minimum could have made for a pretty good VCS exclusive, as it really was a fun game, but Atari's penchant for screwing their devs over on payment likes to get in the way.  That's always a great attitude to have when operating a new game console & distribution platform, as both Fergal Mac and Rob Wyatt found out.

 

 

[zzip]

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

there are many others, including the pinball titles you mention, most games with "simulator" or "trainer" in the name, Vader Immortal, etc.), it's like saying that you just need more sales to be a success - well, yeah. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Just like with the Wii, WiiU, Kinect, & Move - there was more potential that could've been tapped out of those gimmicks, but outside of some exceptions, the hits didn't materialize and we're back to more traditional controllers with gyro controls being used every once in a while. 

I think long-term VR will be a success, it opens up whole new ways to play and allows the kind of creativity that we haven't seen since the 80s or so.  Too much of the videogame industry now is about serving up AAA games that use the same templates as the last AAA game, because there's too much money on the line to risk making "creative" decisions in game design.   It's very easy to get burnt out on that kind of gaming

 

Motion controls only have niche uses in TV gaming..  bowling, fine,  swinging a sword or bat sure--   but it doesn't completely track 1:1 on screen.    Aiming a gun with them isn't going to be accurate enough on a screen,  neither is picking up objects with your hands, which is not a paradigm that even exists in traditional games.   But these are all things that work very well in a VR world.   Traditional gamers complain about motion controls, while VR gamers demand that games add support for motion controls that don't already have them.   A lot of VR gamers feel the motion controls are essential to the VR experience.

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Tacking VR onto big properties is a nice way to reward those who bought into the tech already, but it's not necessarily causing people to drop everything and invest in VR either. Like you said, it needs more unique titles that become tech sellers, but just saying/hoping for that doesn't make it devs have those epiphanies needed to make it happen.

It can help push people over the fence.  If you are unsure if you want to pay $300 to play dedicated VR games Beat Saber, knowing you can play favorites like Minecraft and Skyrim in VR can help push people to take the plunge

 

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Has anyone tried using a VR headset on their VCS? Perhaps that would make it slightly more compelling

I don't know if it's up to the task.   Typically they say you should have at least a 1060 to do VR on PC

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Ok, I got a response from one of the game developers on Minimum (he is now a professor of Game Design at Purdue U.), and since I promised I'd share, here you go.

Thanks.

 

I read once from a guy, who said he worked for a video game publishing company, that there was some technical  (potential) problem with the game. And that that was the reason why they turned it down, so it may not be all Atari´s fault. But I am sure their cheapness played a part.

 

I haven´t played it, but it looked like a lot of fun.

[Lord Mushroom]

22 hours ago, pacman000 said:

Just trying to say that the people most likely to buy a lot of games will most likely care about latency.

That is true.

 

Also I noticed you have been giving me some likes, and here I go all critical and in your face. I try to be respectful to those who are respectful to me, and respond in kind to those who are not respectful. But here I was a bit disrespectful, and that I apologize for.

 

It gets a little difficult to keep track of who to be nice to, and who to treat like crap.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Lord Mushroom

[pacman000]

Just try to be nice to everyone. Then you don’t have to worry.

[Lord Mushroom]

4 minutes ago, pacman000 said:

Just try to be nice to everyone. Then you don’t have to worry.

That´s impossible.  

 

If any other innocent posters have felt or will feel "my wrath", now you know what happened. I am not that bad even when I am bad, but nice people deserve to be treated well.

[Lord Mushroom]

Also, bad people who I have been nice to: Fuck you.