Video: Augmented Reality NES Gaming Finally Gives Us A Reason To Want Microsoft's HoloLens

That looks really easy to play! it would take weeks to finish the first level if you play like that guy.

Wow! It can't possibly look that good in reality, could it?

The video gameplay looks so amazing and unbelievable that I'm staring to wonder whether the 3D graphics were just edited in using After Effects or something.

If this is the real deal, WOW!

When they release Metroid Prime on VR, I'll be sold.

OMG! SUCH A GIMMICK! (...seriously, this looks incredible!)

I really lov the Idea of AR much more than VR, but after using Hololens for a while I was really put off by the tiny window that all the AR visuals run through. I can't imagine how you could play these games without being far enough away to fit the whole screen inside that window.

The future will be awesome though. I can't wait until we have something like Mario 64 being projected down onto a table for us to play.

This looks incredible.Is it too much to hope for NX to have something similar out the box? haha

It looks amazing, I really can't wait to see where AR will go in the next years when the tech is more developed.
I far prefer this to VR - AR lets you interact with the medium around you, VR shuts you off... Why would I want to shut away from what's happening around me?

I'll not give Microsoft money for that after Young Conker... shudder

This does look genuinely cool, for what it is, but all I ever see on AR really is gimmicks. Some people go on about how they believe AR is better than VR—I've yet to see any proof of it. I mean, sure, Pokemon Go is hugely popular; but the game is meh and the AR stuff is kinda crap and unecessary. With VR there's actually real, fully-fledged games there, that don't necessarily rely solely on the gimmicky aspect of the technology either. And there's stuff you can do in VR that you simply can't do in any other medium, and that stuff is amazing precisely because of what VR specifically brings to the table (that complete/total immersion in an imaginary world). AR is mostly just a glorified HUD/UI. Still, it's cool to see these NES games floating like this in AR, as entirely superficial and basically pointless as it is.

I think we've been ignoring Augmented Reality for far too long, we've had technology like this for far longer than one might think. I find ideas like this fascinating, frankly I think this stuff can often be cooler than Virtual Reality. They both have cool applications, but there is something that's just so neat about a game seeming appearing to be a part of your reality instead of taking you to a separate entirely fake reality.

This stuff is cool, but the videos are always cheating with hololens because you only see through a smaller square that doesn't include peripheral vision at all. The basic idea does work well though, apparently.

I want to see this application work around the room like that cool party application way back, though. In other words, the level actually wraps around the walls of the room and you have to move around and rotate to follow Mario as you control him. Now add local multiplayer and have people looking in all directions...

@Kirk VR isolates. AR integrates. The mainstream appeal is going to go to AR in the long run, while VR will be for the basement dwellers. I don't mean this in a derogatory way and both will have their place, but in my opinion AR will be in day to day use like smart phones and work computers and gaming along side it.

@madelk Got half-serious with a buddy about jumping in on developing for Hololens until this issue kept coming up. Still might be worth getting on board early but it's in experimental territory for the time being. The possibilities we were exploring were intoxicating.

@aaronsullivan AR is like gaming on an iPhone; VR is like gaming on a PS4. There may or may not be more people who ultimately use AR—it's up for debate—but VR is simply a better gaming and entertainment platform from every single thing I have ever seen of both technologies. And we're on a gaming site, not some running site or whatever, so that is pretty much the only thing I care about right now. There's very little stuff I've seen on AR that makes it a truly compelling gaming or entertainment platform, and almost everything I've seen that is kinda cool on it doesn't really need the AR aspect to be so, such as the games in the video above (which don't actually use the AR in any way at all), or Pokemon Go (I'd argue it could be just as much fun with the App showing normal game graphics with no AR but still making you go outside and stuff to actually find the Pokemon). With VR, however, there's stuff you can do there that gives you experiences you basically could not have with pretty much any other medium (and certainly none we can anywhere near practically use just now), and they're better experiences for it (like actually standing directly inside some full scale alien world that's wrapped all around you in 360 degrees).

@Kirk Then you must never have seen all the tech demos from Magic Leap. That device offers AR experiences with console grade graphics, easily being on par with or nearing PS4 graphics.

And all Magic Leap demos available are filmed through the actual device, so WYSIWYG.

EDIT:
Forgot the videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0-JRa9n94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvAh5ajfBq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLkFWq_ipCc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yumCpRXouFw

And check out "Interactive Dynamic Video" while you're at it. It's the latest evolution used with AR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzUHbwfVof0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f1fCCb3hVg
As seen in the second video where they showcase the tech with Pokémon, it is far more immersive and "realistic" because the computer generated graphics interact way more naturally with their surroundings instead of the kind of "hovering" animations that you see in Pokémon GO.

Of course this is also something you could do with VR, but then you are manipulating computer graphics. Manipulating the actual world you're in is WAY more interesting and new from a gameplay perspective. And of course more exciting, since it appeals to the senses in a realistic manner.

@ThanosReXXX I've seen all of them and none of them impress me. Most of the stuff is a mixture of bullshot and just nothing particularly impressive, and certainly not for gaming (which is the main criteria I'm judging it by). Again, it's ultimately all just glorified HUDs/UIs for the most part that I've seen.

I really think people are drinking a lot of Kool-Aid here, at least if they're thinking about this tech in terms of actual gaming and entertainment as opposed to maybe overlaying some weather updates or telling you how far you run and other totally unexciting junk like that, which it will be great for (activity and productivity type stuff).

What I will continue to say until shown otherwise is that the very thing that makes AR what it is, overlaying it over the real world, is what's ultimately makes it generally boring and unimpressive to me. By its very design, it is always inherently limited by having to be augmented over the real world.

And I guess it comes down to this: People who think something like Pokemon Go is impressive because of the little bit of AR that it uses might find AR as a tech extremely exciting, but people who actually look for quality games in there, which do things in AR that could only be done in AR and are better for it, will likely not be particularly impressed with AR after seeing what VR is capable of—I'm one of those people.

For proper gaming and entertainment, I see AR as a total gimmick right now (although it's great for some of the more activity and productivity type stuff I alluded to earlier), and I have no doubt VR is going to revolutionise how we play games and enjoy entertainment (even if not everyone is going to want to stick a VR headset on their head and totally immersive themselves in these virtual worlds; but those are the same people who likely don't play on proper consoles right now either, which isn't us, so that's basically a mute point).

Note: I'm not questioning the impressiveness of the technology at work here, in either case—it's all impressive stuff technically (the video where AR objects can subtly move stuff in the real world is neat). I actually think the tech in something like Magic Leap is pretty cool, but I assert we'll mostly be using it to check stats and graphs projected onto a wall at the end of the day, or view projected computer screens, or look at floating heart-rate monitors while we're running and cycling, or looking at floating "holographic" maps, and other activity/productivity stuff like that—and I really don't give a toss about that kind of thing.

@Kirk Man, no offense but you're definitely pulling the sour puss card here again. So near PS4 graphics aren't impressive? That whale in the gym hall was as lifelike as it can get with current consumer range computer hardware and the Interactive Dynamic Video technology is really ground breaking and innovative.

If you cannot see the MAJOR improvement such tech brings to games like Pokémon GO (the very reason why I linked to that example video with Pokémon in the first place) then you're not looking at it objectively.

In the current game, Pokémon and everything that is overlaid by AR is floating in the real world and doesn't actually feel like it's standing in the location that you are currently at, while Interactive Dynamic Video makes that a hell of a whole lot more believable, even if that too ain't quite there yet, but it is a major improvement already. And the fact that you can manipulate real world objects in that video is even more of an improvement. You HAVE to be able to see that and understand that this cannot be replicated in the same way in VR.

Look, I'm not going to attack you on taste, since if it's a taste thing, then it's an opinion and that's a different story, but you can't tell me that when looking at it with an objective eye, that it isn't impressive. The whole industry agrees that Magic Leap has brought this technology to the next level graphically and is excited about it, knowing full well what is capable with VR too, and then you, a lone indie developer (once again, no offense) deems it to be crap. That's slightly odd to say the least...

And if you think that the whole thing that makes AR what it is, is ultimately boring, then I think you're sorely missing the point. The name already says it: it is supposed to augment reality, not virtually recreate it. So, that's not it's shortcoming, it's the actual purpose and it's strength.

And for the record: I personally think Pokémon GO is okayish, not impressive, mainly because I keep seeing the floating I previously mentioned, so it distracts me, but as a free app, it's okay. Magic Leap on the other hand: that truly IS impressive, and the demos are only in beta stage, so just think what it can do when it goes further into development.

And the various applications shown are also so much more versatile than VR. You can't wear a VR headset and still see other people or your surroundings, with AR you can. Just think of educational purposes, like the example demo footage with the planets. It could be done in class, all while listening to and still being able to see your teacher, so you're not isolated. I'm sure @aaronsullivan would agree on all these points, or at least most of them...

And VR also still doesn't have graphics that can compete with reality, so even though VR is really cool (tried out the Oculus twice myself, so I've seen first hand what it is capable of) it is still an entire world of computer generated imagery.

So, the added bonus of AR is that once the tech gets even more advanced, you can ultimately put next gen looking stuff in the real world, and that is something that VR will NEVER achieve.

My ultimate dream would be to experience a holodeck, just like in Star Trek TNG, but realistically, we're still decades away from that kind of tech even being built. But that would certainly be the ultimate mix of AR and VR...

@Kirk i agree if i have to choose one i would pick vr all day

this is so amazing but.. $3000..

@ThanosReXXX The actual visuals in these rendered demos are often lovely, but that means nothing in terms of it selling AR to me. Because, I'm not talking about rendering nice graphics here; I'm talking about AR. An AR game having some nice renders of whatever does not impress me in the slightest at the end of the day, just as it wouldn't on if I saw a lovely rendered whale on PS4 either. We've been capable of photo-realistic renders for years—look at almost any screen of Forza or whatever for examples of cars that literally look real in most cases. Virtually every machine is capable of rendering graphics could render a near-lifelike whale in this day and age, even the 3DS (if that's all you asked it to render for a cool bullshot demo).

The problem is not that I can't see what the tech brings to Pokemon Go, it's that people like you are confusing what the tech is actually bringing and what can and does exist independent of the the tech. Almost nothing in Pokemon Go really needs or is enhanced by the AR part. In fact, I'd even argue the times you see a Pokemon awkwardly floating over your couch would probably be better if you just saw some nice game graphics instead. You could still use the location stuff to have to go to your couch to find the Pokemon though, but that is not AR; that's just location based tech that is readily available in all modern handhelds and mobile devices and has little to do with AR. AR, is literally augmenting visuals over reality with a bit of realtime motion tracking.

Here's what I think: I think a whole lot of you have allowed a bunch of marketing men to dupe you into believing AR is going to far better for gaming and entertainment than it ultimately is—unless you seriously believe that simply overlaying a Pokemon in front of a McDonald's store front is what makes a game experience special. I 1000% don't find that impressive; a computer character floating in front of a shop or couch or tree or whatever—it is a glorified HUD/UI. It's like the video above: While it's kinda cool, it ultimately is just a standard 2D Mario game projected in front of you with the background colour removed to show your room as the background instead—and that is literally it. AR has added absolutely zero hero, it's just a kinda cool gimmick. And not that all AR games will be so simple and gimmicky, but most of them actually won't be that far off imo.

AR is only more versatile in terms of where you can practically use it. It's not even open for debate; VR can do an order of magnitude more things that AR once you're inside that virtual world. VR is basically limitless in terms of what it can create before you once you've got the headset on; AR, by its very nature, will alway be something projected of the same old real world around you (and that world is matter-of-fact finite), or else it's not AR.

And, you seem to be very confused about AR vs VR graphics: VR can render graphics that look every bit as photo-realistic as any AR projection you've seen (aside from the actual resolution of the display screen, obviously; but that has nothing to do with the actual thing being rendered, just the output), because it's just a typical PC rendering the visuals. Right now, if I had the means, I could go get someone to render that exact whale you saw in that AR video inside VR. But, again, you're allowing yourself to be duped into believing that AR is somehow rendering something you can't render in VR, which is quite simply wrong.

The one thing I can agree with, however, is that mixing both AR and VR, allowing developers to do whatever, whenever, be it full VR or AR, or even a mix, is the best of both worlds—and that is coming in time, so great. But, what it will likely do is make people forget just how limited and gimmicky AR actually is on its own (specifically when it comes to games and entertainment, as opposed to activity/productivity type applications). What they'll likely do is start attributing all the amazing things VR can do to AR too.

Basically, I think many of you guys are just going to have to see both technologies released as actual products in the near future before you realise that VR does exactly what it purports to do and AR is actually a bit useless for most of the things I presume you are imagining it's so amazing for (gaming, basically). Again, that's unless you truly believe that the AR aspects of something like Pokemon Go are the best gaming experience you seen in generations—which I personally think would be really sad and such a kick in the teeth for all the actual/genuinely high quality games out there (and I'm talking specifically just the AR parts, not the tracking software and whatever else that isn't AR at all).

It's well done but I don't get the hype. The AR doesn't add to the experience or improve the game in any way. The games themselves, while some are undeniable classics, aren't anything new they're all available elsewhere. Yeah it's neat but would I buy a hololens for this (if by some bizarre twist of fate it became a legit thing)? No.
Besides, I generally play games as a break from the daily real world. I want to immerse myself in the beautifully and loving crafting worlds of the games not pluck bits out of them and overlay them on my kitchen and bathroom with some clunky headset.

I guess I'm glad that people still appreciate these games this much though.

@Kirk No, my friend, I'm not duped: I can't be, at least not by tech or marketing guys, since I'm both of those myself. Can't kid the kidder, so to speak. I know when people try to BS me with marketing speech or a sales pitch.

So I haven't allowed myself to believe anything. I have experienced VR, like I already told you, with the Oculus, and what struck me is that, at least on those demos, the "feeling" of being there was only partial, especially because in one demo I had virtual hands and I had to "use" them by operating two of these weird Oculus controllers to operate virtual stuff that wasn't really there.

Now, in AR combined with the Interactive Dynamic Video technology, you can both see and use your OWN hands to manipulate stuff in the REAL world. How in the hell is that not a superior experience? The fact that you even think that baffles me to no end.

And we agree on Pokémon GO's inferior experience since I have mentioned my own disconnect with that, due to the floating several times, so no need to mention that. The Pokémon also seem flat, which is another thing, but I digress.

The Magic Leap experience is a full blown, 3D experience everywhere you go, the final device will not be tethered by a PC
and it doesn't suffer from any deficiencies that the aforementioned Pokémon GO does, so it's more realistic, better looking, more stable and doesn't float in the air but actually seems to be there. And it is not flat, you can walk around it and manipulate it. Look up the Star Wars demo that I forgot to post. It features C3PO and others that talk and walk around with you. Combine all that with the IDV tech, and you have a very interesting piece of technology that is so broadly applicable and as an added bonus doesn't isolate the user. Another HUGE bonus.

But still, if all that is not interesting or innovative according to you, then that's your opinion, and I can respect that, but then we will just have to agree to disagree because you're not going to change my opinion either, so I hope you won't try to do so, no offense.

When it drops in price by $2900 it might become interesting.

@ThanosReXXX Well, I think you're being duped when it comes to AR.

I mean, there you go basically saying that manipulating stuff with your hands in AR is better than manipulating stuff with a controller in VR (and I have to presume you mean in terms of the tech that's currently available in both cases; or else this debate is totally meaningless). That's just a total and utter joke that you're even saying such a thing. The precision, quality, accuracy, responsiveness, versatility, etc., of the current VR motion controllers like the Oculus Touch totally and utterly craps over any current AR gesture based input, so much so it's not even funny.

You can't get anywhere close to this with any current AR control solutions I've seen (that consumers will be using in the next year or two):

https://youtu.be/iFEMiyGMa58

Maybe in some future version of the technology where AR is combined with a physical object, like holding an actual gun prop, it will be as good as or better than the current motion controllers available for Vive and Rift, but right now it's not even close. Again, it's all basically bullshots you've seen if you seen any such examples so far (like that Magic Leap video where the guy picks up a gun and stats blasting enemies in the room). At best these AR solutions will be far less accurate and responsive than the likes of a first-gen Wiimote or first-gen Kinect, because the AR tech simply isn't good enough at tracking them plus any other gestures you make for now. It's just a kinda rubbish head camera doing all the work for now, at least as far as we've seen on Hololens for example (and we've not really seen Magic Leap's control interface).

Magic Leap, right now, is basically all a bullshot. None of us have even seen the device or anything more than very simple tech demos of the visuals being displayed in best case scenarios—in video footage that just like Microsoft's Hololens videos can totally and utterly lie to you about things like the field of view and the lad on the tracking—and none of those have particularly impressed me. Again, it's some footage of a "holographic" object floating in front of you in most cases, with some minimum interaction with the 3D world at best. That we've seen so far. The idea of the tech is cool, but the reality of any current-gen AR headsets that we might be using in everyday use is completely unimpressive to me right now.

The AR demo with C3PO is a very specific setup that you simply cannot have at home. It's an expensive demo room and little more at this point. If you're just talking about bullshot stuff that some Hollywood studio is going to set up for only a couple of journalists to use that is totally and utterly impractical in any other scenario for normal home consumers, then we're just going off into stupid territory imo. I mean, if that's the case, we should be talking about VR with a 200 degree plus filed of view, a full warehouse to walk around in, and multiple physical controllers to pick up, which is just stupid—no one is going to be using VR like that.

I don't know about you here but I'm talking about AR vs VR as these technologies are going to be available to consumers in the next couple of years (and is already available with VR), not some imagined best-case scenario ten years down the line or whatever, which may or may not come close to what we'd like to imagine these technologies are capable of when they realise their full potential.

Again, AR is going to mostly give you glorified HUDs/UIs (for activity and productivity type stuff) and VR is going to give you full blow and fully immersive game experiences, the likes of which simply cannot exist in other mediums and with any other technology currently available—and I'm talking about it doing that now. You can play some genuinely awesome VR games right now. You can look at some pretty boring tech demos of floating 3D objects with AR right now.

Show me anything on current AR that is giving you this kind of gaming and entertainment experience right now (that's actually because of the AR as opposed to some other tech that also happens to use a tiny bit of AR):

https://youtu.be/W0b_wfVzpWI

https://youtu.be/8VQKVv5Atr0

https://youtu.be/CJ1wjwgTZNk

https://youtu.be/u47uN544HYQ

https://youtu.be/iFEMiyGMa58

https://youtu.be/7ijGiZRfTRU

https://youtu.be/O9qghITvZYE

https://youtu.be/XoL1uLS1HQ4

https://youtu.be/KirQtdsG5yE

https://youtu.be/bwNoLs3SIR0

https://youtu.be/qIh2MraniZg

And none of that is bullshot.

I'm very rarely offended and I hope the same is true for you, because I'm not trying to offend you; I'm simply calling stuff as I see it.

@Kirk Well, that Toy Box demo is utterly unimpressive to me so that's not convincing me at all. It's like I said: virtual things done in a virtual world with virtual controls and the "hands" you use are controllers that take getting used to but even once your used to them, they're still not hands so they can NEVER replicate that feeling. You were also missing the point entirely: I'm not saying that as a whole, one is better than the other, but in this specific case and to me personally having had the experience with the Oculus, I still think that actually being able to see your own hands and using them instead of a couple of weird looking controllers to manipulate stuff is the more natural and therefore superior experience in my opinion, so that cannot be debated, and I would like you to respect that instead of ridiculing it.

And once again: NO, I'm not duped. Think what you will, you're free to do so, but a man with my experience and knowledge in this field (over 25 years of experience in IT, and almost 18 years in IT related Sales & Marketing) knows when something is fishy or "bullshot". I am the one making the pretty sales stories and I can smell someone else doing it from miles away, so I will never fall for that, unless the guy or woman is REALLY good, and most tech related guys only possess average sales skills, so their pitches are full of holes and I see right through them.

When I was trying out the Oculus, I even got these guys tongue tied with some of my questions, so I know how the game is played. Not bragging, just giving you a frame of reference in regards to my experience level.

And as far as Magic Leap is concerned: that will be coming out somewhere between 2017 and 2018, so maybe we should save that part of the discussion for that time. I still think it looks great and if they can manage to achieve that in the final product, then I will most certainly be interested in trying it out and maybe even buying it, depending on the price. I see no floating there, unless you consider everything computer generated in a real world as floating, but you can surely see the difference between this and Pokémon GO, where the slightest movement of your smart phone makes even a Pokémon that's sitting perfectly still move all over the place, and that is what I meant with floating.

Magic Leap does not show such deficiencies. Objects are in place rock solid and stay there, even if you move around, so they appear to be WAY more grounded. And that is something that goes a long way into making it more believable and acceptable for the brain than a Pokémon that is drifting across your smart phone screen. Obviously, the difference is also that the Magic Leap is a wearable, so the AR will be all around you instead of being confined to the smaller screen of a smart device.

Anyways, that is my opinion, hope we can leave it at that. I had some hopes that this was already clear since in the previous comment I already said:
"But still, if all that is not interesting or innovative according to you, then that's your opinion, and I can respect that, but then we will just have to agree to disagree because you're not going to change my opinion either, so I hope you won't try to do so, no offense."

But then you went ahead and made an entire wall of text to drive your point home anyway. (which didn't work, by the way, because it is my opinion and I stand by it, even after having tried out VR myself)

"I'm simply calling stuff as I see it."

And that is your opinion, and I respect that as well.

P.S.

If you're not trying to offend people, it might be a good idea not to use sentences like "That's just a total and utter joke that you're even saying such a thing." because that actually is offensive and it is things like that which makes quite a few people think that you have a rather abrasive personality. I myself am not too bothered; I can take a couple of hits and shrug it of, but just saying that this is the thing that lands you in these heavy discussions with other NLife members (and even the crew itself) sometimes.

Maybe you aren't even aware of it yourself that you are doing this, but there are moments when it is just better to leave unsaid what you are thinking in order to prevent unnecessary hostilities, since it is not going to gain you anything. It's just a game forum and no one is waiting for someone else to assault them with truckloads of info and statements just because he thinks he's right and they're wrong.

Having said that, I personally think you're okay, if somewhat direct, but I can appreciate that most of the time, so I still respect your opinion. Hope we can close this one up now and you can be certain that I'll get back to this topic with you once the Magic Leap is finally commercially available so we can really (or should that be virtually?) compare the two devices...

@ThanosReXXX Are you unable to tell what's actually going on in these videos or something?

You say the Toybox demo is unimpressive but you're impressed with someone pinching their fingers to complete an action on the likes of Hololens or whatever (because that's pretty much the only real control and interaction with seen with commercial AR so far)?

Do you actually fully understand what's happening in both examples?

Trust me, the Toybox demo utterly blows away any similar control demonstrations we've seen for the upcoming consumer AR devices, by a long way. And, there's definitely more "feeling" with these motion controllers than waving your hand in thin air and pinching your fingers like you do with any AR stuff I've seen; those motion controllers actually give you real tactile feedback, and not just gripping the controller, pressing buttons, or pushing the sticks, but rumble feedback too. There's currently zero of that on any upcoming consumer AR solutions, that I've seen. And I doubt Magic Leap will be any different. I expect to see something very similar to Hololens actually, but maybe the thing stick on your face will be a little smaller and ideally have a larger field of view.

Show me an AR control solution that's coming to consumer AR headsets in the near future that even sniffs what Oculus is doing with the Touch controllers. . . .

"unless you consider everything computer generated in a real world as floating"

When it comes to AR, basically yes, I do. But, there's obviously better versions of it than others, and I can see the likes of Hololens and Magic Leap are going to be much better than how it's done in Pokemon go at least. When done right, like with the Minecraft Hololens demos (even though most of that was still bullshots), it can be pretty convincing that it's not just floating over your real world view and is actually interacting with it to some degree.

Those sentences are me calling it as I see it, as I said. I don't give offence in saying that; if offence is taken it is taken by the other person in how they respond to what I've said. They could choose not to be offended by it and just take it for what it is; me disputing their claims and saying exactly what I feel about them.

I know what I'm doing; I'm not sugar coating how I think and feel about something just to create some kind of artificial situation where no one ever actually says anything real just in case someone cries—it's one of the things I utterly hate most about the now totally OTT PC internet. Everyone has to speak as though they're talking to fiver year olds who might cry if you disagree with them. Well, I don't play that game (see what I did there? I said "game" . . . in a video game site ).

I'm not trying to be cruel or intentionally be offensive when I say stuff like that; I'm just really blunt and saying exactly what I thougt about that particular thing (within the limitations of the fourms posting rules of course), and I don't like how internet is trying to force everyone one like me not to be blunt. That's how I am; the internet can go try to program someone else to think and act the way it wants. lol

@Kirk Aw man, you literally picked up on nothing that I was trying to convey to you, which truly is a shame.

Let me be clear: there is no NEED for you to stress your points to me, I've read all of them, and I respect your opinion, but PLEASE also respect mine. I've also been VERY clear on why I like what I've seen from Magic Leap and Dynamic Interactive Video and I friggin' tried Oculus myself on two separate occasions, so it's not like I'm talking from no experience.

To me PERSONALLY, moving my hands, seeing them and actually using them to grab and manipulate stuff is more realistic than having to manipulate controllers. And even objectively, real hands are obviously more realistic than controllers, so there isn't even a debate there.

There's a disconnect somewhere if you "see" hands but feel controllers, and if they manage to perfect the AR/Interactive Dynamic Video tech in the years before the Magic Leap comes out, then this disconnect will potentially be fixed.

It's not about being impressed with someone pinching their fingers, it is being impressed by real life objects being manipulated and actually moving by actions from real hands, and your own hands nonetheless, so I don't have to use controllers. If they perfect that, like with tactile feedback, well... that's as close to real life as it is going to get.

I know you don't agree but like I said: there's no need for you to win me over because in the end, I'm going to stick with my own opinion anyway, so you'll just be carrying water to the sea.

And please don't come back with some comment that you think it's ridiculous or something, because that would be highly offensive to me.

Just accept that and let's just agree to disagree, and no offense, but as far as I am concerned, that's that for now. Have a good one.

EDIT:
And you say you don't want to offend, but "Do you actually fully understand what's happening in both examples?" is also quite offensive and actually an insult to my intelligence, which I don't take very kindly to, so please refrain from using those kinds of condescending remarks. I've told you my experience and I'm quite well versed in the IT tech world and in hardware, so I clearly know what I'm talking about.

@ThanosReXXX But you're not really grabbing and manipulating stuff. Your faking it by putting your hands somewhere in the air, making a basic gesture (pinching, pointing, swiping, whatever), and then hoping the AR object follows close enough to not look crap. And there's absolutely zero tactile feedback or feeling there too.

With VR you actually are grabbing something, the controller. And when you pinch your fingers you actually feel resistance. And when you shoot a gun there's actual rumble feedback to simulate recoil. When you swing that virtual lightsaber you're holding something that feels like the handle of a lighsaber to a degree. And more besides.

I'm honestly not sure you really grasp what the actual reality of these two different controls are going to be like, as opposed to the marketed fantasy of them on some nice YouTube video—despite your claims about understanding all the marketing stuff these guys pull.

Basically, it's like all those people that bought into the bullshot that was Kinect. All the controls you've seen on any kind of upcoming commercial AR so far are quite literally glorified Kinect, and in some cases will likely be less accurate. If you honestly think using Kinect was better than using a Wiimote or traditional controller, then fine. But, I don't believe that for one second. You seem smarter than that—than to drink the Kook Aid that is waving your hands about like a plonker and pinching thin air and pretending you're actually having fun playing a game like that.

PS. You know I'm gonna keep coming back with comments, right? lol

@Kirk I said I was done. Please accept and respect that. It has nothing to do with me not grasping things, it has to do with my own experience with Oculus and how I personally see the development of AR in things like the Magic Leap. Why is it so hard for you to respect my opinion? You're not going to win, so please leave it alone already. I enjoy a good discussion any time of the day, but this really isn't any fun anymore.

@ThanosReXXX See above. lol

I just don't like to see people being so easily duped, especially when they then evangelise that dupage to other people too.

Right now AR isn't even sniffing VR, and anyone that believes otherwise has been duped. But, they're free to be duped; I'm not saying they aren't. I will, however, say they're been duped as long as that's what I believe. It's not my job to let you live in a fantasy land. It's my job to tell the truth; or, at least that's how I choose to roll. Although, you're free to live in the fantasy, but it just means you have to choose to ignore my comments rather than try to tell me to stop speaking, because I won't.

As long as someone is talking crap about something, as I see it, I'll feel compelled to talk truthfully about it, as I see it. It's just how I am built.

@Kirk I said ACCEPT and RESPECT that. More over, please respect me and my opinion. It is perfectly clear that you don't agree, but no need to keep taking the higher ground. I'm not trying to win you over either, I was just telling you about my own experience and opinion and that's that. We don't agree and we aren't going to, so why keep going? Let's just be civil and like I already suggested earlier agree to disagree?

I bear you no ill will, but you do have to know when to stop acting superior or whatever because it isn't very becoming...

@ThanosReXXX And, similarly to how you must think I'm not listening to you, you're obviously not listening to me. I can't stop; it's not how I'm built. As long as something is disputed, as I see it, I feel compelled to dispute it. But, you are free to ignore me and click away from this particular conversation. I'm not gonna follow you into another thread or something—I'm not THAT compelled. But I won't quit as long as I believe one thing and someone is basically claiming something else is the truth of it.

Basically, you think AR is better, sometimes in some very specific ways too, and I totally disagree. And, I very rarely "agree to disagree" in situations like this, as I'm sure you are well aware of by now. It doesn't mean you can't walk away and still hold onto your belief 100% though.

@Kirk That wasn't really my point. I'm just asking you to respect my opinion, like I'm respecting yours.

And if we as humans even have a job, besides the one that is earning us our daily bread, it's being a decent person and to life a good life, not to be cocky, or a know-it-all that has to point out to other people all the things they are doing wrong or seeing wrong or need to be right all the time and have the last word no matter what.

In real life, that only makes you a potential target for the less patient and more easily flammable people on this Earth that would probably end the discussion early in a more physical manner. I'm not that kind of a person, but I can very well imagine this happening to you because of how you conduct yourself, that is: if you also behave like this in daily life.

Again, I know you're not a bad person which is why I don't bear you any ill will, but I REALLY don't take kindly to people questioning my sanity or intelligence just because I don't agree with them. You're welcome to have the last word, as I'm pretty sure you will...

@ThanosReXXX I do respect your opinion. I just happen to totally disagree with it and think it's wrong, and I believe that its based on a slight lack of true understanding of the thing you've formed an opinion on. Again, that's not me trying to offend you; it's me saying exactly what I believe. As I see it, there's kinda no other way you could come to the exact opposite view to me in this situation otherwise. Because, you are talking about gaming with both of these techs, as far as I'm aware, and that requires certain things to actually work well and be of a certain high quality (unless you're a casual noob who doesn't care about such quality, and I don't think you are). If you were saying "AR is better for looking at the weather update while you're jogging" . . . BAM! You win! But you're not.

You'd be very surprised that near zero people will ever try to end a conversation the way you think, because most people are not actually that true to their convictions, and most people are kinda wusses too when all is said and done. Sure, they can talk the talk and play social games and wear the mask all day, but that's just an illusion. Most people aren't as tough, bold, or assertive as they pretend to be at their jobs or wherever. Most people bluff, even the tough ones. I don't bluff, and many a bluffer has learned this truth just a little too late.

Hey, I'm not questioning your sanity. You seem like a very sane guy. But, I question your judgement in certain things, like AR vs VR. lol

Of course, you surely know that I question most people's judgements of most things most of the time anyway, so this shouldn't be a shock to you.

And I told you, I can't stop—it's like a disease!