DartBuzzer

@hatch But MR is just a mechanism to drive a blending state between AR and VR. Either you are in AR or you are in VR or you are in a blended state between the two which can certainly be called MR but considering it's just a blend between them, I can't really call that a third figure.

But anyway this is all just semantics at this point. I think we both agree that AR/VR hybrids aka MR/XR is the true future of these types of technologies.

@Dalarrun That makes no sense. You can do both. You can't expect all these optical scientists and engineers to start working on a solution to global warming or other problems - because they have no idea; that's not their field, and they have the right to pursue their own dreams.

And besides, there are many limits to reality. VR can be used to overcome many limitations of our world, like distance. We first managed that with radio and telephones, but it's still nothing like being with each other. VR is like being with each other and considering how social we humans are, it can help billions of lives based on that one use case alone, and that's just a small snippet of VR's capabilities.

In a decade or two, we're all going to look back at this and realized how we managed without VR, just like we wonder how we managed without other modern mainstream technologies.

@Dalarrun You do realize that you could be playing traditional games on a full blown replica of an IMAX theater that feels just as real, which could be private or shared with friends that look indistinguishable from their real life counterparts - and you'd feel their actual physical presence beside you. You could see your fiance as well because reality can bleed into your VR experience to any degree in the future. What if you are apart from your fiance? Are you going to use facetime and still really miss each other, or feel almost entirely connected with VR?

Is it scary? Sure, maybe. But is it useful and beneficial? Absolutely. There are no downsides aside from simply wearing a pair of glasses. (in the future)

Also it's ironic to call VR users morbidly obese when they are more likely to be getting more exercise than the average gamer.

@hatch You can't really say that AR and VR are stop-gaps to MR because MR (I call it XR) is literally not a technology of it's own, but a spectrum. MR / XR just means a complete circle: AR and VR together. It's still either AR or VR or a blend of the two, not some mysterious third figure.

Now if you were to say AR and VR 'headsets' are a stop-gap to MR / XR 'headsets' (or glasses) then I'd agree.

@Green_Sensei AR and VR are going to be two rivals playfighting with each other before becoming best friends. Which means that they will only compete short-term for 5-10 years. 10+ years from now, almost every headset will just be a AR/VR hybrid or to put it better: XR glasses.

You will not find a problem with wearing glasses, believe me. Today's headsets I can understand, but no one is really going to complain that they have to wear a pair of sunglasses that gives them superpowers.

If they do complain, then well I don't know what to say except they'd complain about everything in life.

@hatch What reasons suggest this? There's really no reason why VR can't be mainstream. There's also no such thing as a stop-gap, because VR ultimately is the final medium as it can simulate every medium given enough time.

@Medic_alert Although everyone is prepared for those kind of attach rates. Reason being because this is consumer generation 1 of the medium. The first consoles, PCs, and smartphones only sold a few hundred thousand units in their lifetime.

Technology has only ever taken off after several generations.

@Medic_alert Yeah, all I can say is hopefully you have a friend that gets one at some point. I'd definitely say that VR is the next step for Mario, or at least a future step that should be capitalized on, because well done VR gets us past a ceiling of quality that hasn't really shifted in decades.

Once we have the first serious Mario VR game, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the universal favorite Mario game because it would be too magical compared to prior games for anyone to really find as much enjoyment or wow moments elsewhere.

@Mountain_Man Okay, so you say you've tried it. But you don't understand it. Some of your previous comments already show your lack of knowledge in the area, saying that "VR is a physical display therefore it can't replace physical displays"

If you understand VR, you know full well that it has a high chance of being mainstream. 3D TVs are such a small addition to a TV. VR is a literal change in human experience on a civilization scale.

In 5 years, when you can replicate a human body almost perfectly in VR, it's going to bridge a connection between people at distances that almost rivals reality. Loneliness will be much much less common because of VR, and it's a technology that could effectively teleport you to any real world place as it's happening in real time, and a device that can replace all other screens and devices by simulating everything.

So why after all of this would one say it's going to be a niche? Because they don't understand it.

And no, VR won't be isolating indefinitely, and no your brain will not be able to tell the difference given enough artifical stimuli.

Most of your notions about VR are false.

@Medic_alert Sony might not have gone all in on the hardware, but their software lineup is getting a lot better for PSVR. Mario Odyssey now has a rival: Astro Bot. I'd go as far to say that it's more innovative and more magical than any Mario game in decades.

@Razzy You've never tried VR before then. It's a shame that gamers are so shortsighted sometimes.

@LUIGITORNADO There are people who say they never had a desire to buy a PC, an automobile, a smartphone before they became mainstream. And then everyone had one, and they did.

I won't say it's a guarantee, but VR has enough potential to replace the smartphone which means it would have a market of billions of users. Though in fairness this requires a combination of AR and VR.

If billions of people are using VR, chances are, you will be too.

Physical isolation is also only a short-term issue. In a few years, headsets will scan real life, merge it with VR, and you'll see real life overlayed into VR. And give it a number of years after that and it will just be glasses that go transparent and opaque on command

@I_Am_A_Geek You've never even seen the actual library of VR games then. This is like me saying every Switch game is a tech demo because all I've seen is 1-2 Switch. I already mentioned Astro Bot which is 8 hours and is extremely fun - so fun in fact that I challenge anyone who has played Mario Odyssey to see which gives them a more enjoyable time. I'd put my bets on Astro Bot.

Mall demos never demo any truly good VR games, aside from Beat Saber. 99% of the good VR stuff is only found with an actual purchase.

@RazorThin I'd actually say Valve are the single most important developers in the industry right now. Well, on one condition: They release their in-development games. If they do release them, then they will be pushing the envelop further than anyone else: Releasing 3 AAA VR games is a huge undertaking.

@Spectra Almost everyone finds VR fun. If you don't, then either you've not even given it a proper try or you're in a tiny minority.

@Frendo If you think PSVR is gimmicky you have not played Astro Bot, clearly. It takes the platformer genre to the next level. As great as Mario Odyssey is, I've had more fun with Astro Bot because it's the first platformer in more than 15 years that has felt truly magical, and that's an understatement.

Honestly any fan of 3D Mario games is going to lose their mind playing Astro Bot. The game is too much fun.

@Realnoize You're basing this on a time too early to tell. This would be akin to saying people will rarely use PCs or Smartphones for entertainment back in the 1970s and early 2000s respectively. Now billions use them for entertainment.

The general consumer in those two time frames would not have jumped on board because it was too early for the average person to be affected by them. So while most people are not interested now, this tells us nothing about 5 years or 10 years from now.

You say you don't have a reason to buy it now. When VR is more advanced, you will start to care because it can profoundly improve any individuals life.

As it turns out, ROI for PCs took ages. Like almost 10 years before any serious money was being made! It's been 2 years since the tech industry made a shift to developing AR/VR so it's far too early for them to abandon ship - infact they generally all reaffirm their commitment long term.

VR will be a convenient form of entertainment and life style. Why? Because with sunglasses that let you replace any screen you have complete convenience. You can lie in bed in the perfect position, you can use it on a plane, you don't have to sit in one exact spot in your house just to use the TV. You don't need to move a TV if you want to watch somewhere else. You don't need to travel nearly as much because you could work in virtual environments and visit friends virtually. The former can be a full replacement in various cases, but the latter is not a replacement just to be clear.

Heck even fitness has a lot to be gained in VR. People don't like exercise, at least usually. Or I should say they don't like the boring nature of it. Beat Saber is already well known for being great for exercise and VR can be a common source in the future. What's not to love? Stay healthy whilst playing games and exploring virtual worlds.

@NEStalgia Oculus Go effectively supersedes the Gear VR. It's just standalone so you spend half a second getting it on or off and it puts you right in to wherever you last left off. That's convenience, at least a step forwards anyway.

Will consumers want to wear a pair of sunglasses that can warp reality both real and virtual, replace tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment (such as projectors, TVs, smartphones, IMAX theaters, unnecessary travel) and be used to communicate with anyone, anytime, anywhere as if they are physically present in front of you, and the ability to visit any real world place as if you are there, as well as record memories, and a place for true escapism?

All for the price of what, slipping on a pair of lightweight sunglasses in half a second? Yes, people will be all over that. It's human nature to want to connect and have fun. VR is the ultimate realization of that.

As for phones, well VR and AR will have many inputs for any given situation. Eye tracking for UI, using your bare hands as a touch screen, attaching UI widgets to your wrist, mind typing, voice recognition etc.

Newer generations will simply grow up with the technology and fears will go away. I don't see us humans sticking with smartphones for another million years. Our species has to accept transhumanism and deeply integrated technology if we ever want to progress further than the next few decades.

@SARankDirector I have played almost every genre in VR and seen the rest from those I haven't played. I am living proof that everything works in VR. If a game has motion sickness for a set of people, it doesn't mean that it's not possible. In fact, many games have options for movement. You can play Skyrim without sickness for example.

@NEStalgia The average Just Dance player would very likely be into Beat Saber. They'd also love to dance with other people in virtual dance clubs. I can't see smartphones being here indefinitely. It makes sense for AR/VR to replace them, and in turn mobile gaming shifts towards AR gaming with holographic mini-games and such, so Candy Crush fans may like their Angry Birds AR game (it exists) or something like that.

You note that we are a long way from that $500 device and yet it is still inevitable. So given that device solves almost all of your issues, why is it highly unlikely that VR will never be mainstream in your mind? Everything can be fixed and likely all within 5-10 years. The only problem that we don't know for sure that can be fixed is motion sickness which only applies to certain areas of gaming. It does not apply to a virtual theater. It does not apply to a room-scale form of movement or teleportation, and it doesn't apply to just sitting with your distant friends on a virtual couch and chatting together. Point is, motion sickness can be completely worked around for a large amount of VR uses.

And why does it matter if we see the world through a camera or not? It eventually all becomes the same to your brain. Real photons and artifical photons; it matters not. Life exists only as a perception of your brain.

And the final frontier for AR/VR/MR is not just real world reconstruction, but simply glasses that black out on demand. That way you can switch between a true transparent mode with no camera and a full VR mode or anything inbetween that.

@roadrunner343 For a VR headset to sell as well as a console it would need to be a standalone headset with: At least 4K x 4K per eye, 140-160 degrees FoV, real world reconstruction, lifelike human avatars with full body tracking, eye tracking, hand tracking, facial tracking, and the ability to replace 1080p screens, dynamic foveated rendering, and a small form factor.

I can see all of that happening in a standalone headset within 6-7 years as Oculus is expecting that (and more) for high-end within 4 years.

When you have a headset that capable paired with really great software, I can totally see it selling as well as a Switch or PS4.

But I'm glad you acknowledge that real world reconstruction will help with isolation, because it's an important step towards legitimatizing VR.

As for asymmetrical games, I suppose it doesn't need to be the norm, just enough there for someone to dig through when they don't want to be isolated. There will (I imagine) still be times when someone wants to isolate themselves because we all need our alone time.

@impurekind Yeah, I've always said that VR has the potential to be bigger than both the PC and console gaming market combined. Because it's not just an entertainment device, but a full computing platform using spatial computing.

@roadrunner343 If it's not the norm, maketh it the norm. No really, Nintendo could add asymmetrical support for lots of their franchises. They already do a lot of local co-op gameplay on Switch as is. But I did say that real world reconstruction would solve the isolation issue anyway, we're just not there yet. AR/VR/MR will all meld together which is why it will no longer be isolating.

@NEStalgia Thing is, you're making a point for VR likely never being mainstream even though all issues you brought up are fixable. Camera calibration is not a thing on Windows MR. There are no cameras to mess with. Headsets will get better at supporting glasses, new types of display technology will diminish lens smudges, cables are already on their way out, headset weight will eventually be comparable to sunglasses, and the anti-social nature is wrong; it's isolating, not anti-social. In fact, VR is the most social technology out there since it connects you across distances to the highest degree.

And today you can get around the isolation issue with asymmetrical gameplay. One of them is already on this list: Keep Talking and Nobody explodes.

In the near future, VR will just reconstruct reality around you in real time and overlay it into VR, letting you see anything in real life like normal in addition to VR. This lets you use a headset around the house even if you were doing chores. Blurriness will also be fixed as there are various display technologies that allow for an infinite sweet spot.

And MS has got into it. They have 6 VR headsets with their partners.

Also the new Oculus headset is full VR. It's the same thing as a Switch; a portable console that is 'underpowered' as you say.

@Realnoize There's no chance of VR not changing the world though. It's going to be one of the most powerful technologies our species will ever have. I mean just the social aspect alone will completely change how our world works. Smartphones and the internet already connected us worldwide. With VR you can connect people as if they are physically together with no difference aside from sense of touch. (which can be filled in for those who want/need it with full body haptic suits)

You can record memories, literally. Put a 360 6DoF camera in your birthday party and you can then hop into it in VR (whilst being able to move inside the party) and relive it again.

I mean there are so many world-changing aspects of VR that your brother is absolutely right.

Simarily, we know PCs and Smartphones are world-changing and yet the masses did not care about them at all in their own early days, like today with VR's early days.

VR is not at all more suitable for environmental setups. I already listed 2 examples that demand you to soak it all in within your own home. You're not going to go to a VR arcade to socialize with people to relive your birthday party now are you? Neither are you going to use it as a computing device by going to an arcade.

You make a point about the market not supporting the ROI you expect, but that was the same for all technologies at one point. As time goes on, the chicken and egg problem will be solved; Valve might be the ones to do that.

@Medic_alert Usually developers don't try to ignore it; they work around it. Onward established the Onward style locomotion system with controller-direction movement. It's not perfect but it did make a difference and allowed FPS games to be playable for most people. Echo Combat is another example, an even greater one in terms of reducing motion sickness. You're rarely going to find someone who has any sickness issues with that game as they couple physical actions with movement.

@Medic_alert I wasn't talking about difficulty in rendering, only about the mechanics lending themselves to VR as that's what I thought you were talking about.

Doom 2016 wasn't given full VR support because it was more effort. Bethesda and ID Software are both still testing the waters. However Ninja Theory did add full VR support to Hellblade and did it very effectively.

I'm not even talking about VR games on the Switch, but rather just a theoretical future system or a standalone headset from Nintendo.

@Medic_alert Hardware power does not dictate whether the above games would run in VR or not from a mechanics stand point. The mechanics needed to get them working aren't exactly resource intensive or anything.

It doesn't actually matter what most VR games are like because you can always build something that strays from that. There is nothing that says you can't build a mechanically deep 20 hour VR game or have full VR support for Wolfenstein.

With Splatoon I gave an example that would absolutely work as a new game mode. But they could also just add VR support across the whole game as well since most people are able to get their VR legs and that hasn't stopped developers making 3rd person camera-movement VR games.

@kukabuksilaks I'm not surprised that people don't think 3rd person games are possible as VR is always hard to understand without trying it. I didn't even see the point of the Xbox streaming app on Oculus when I saw it a few years ago. Everyone bashed it saying how it's pointless having a screen inside a screen. Yet it makes perfect sense to me now.

And Black and White in VR is the game we all need...

@Heavyarms55 Then ignore it. It's that simple. It will not die. It can only get bigger from here on out.

@Medic_alert If VR support was added to those games, I imagine the developers would rework them. Wolfenstein would work with some adjustments. Splatoon would work, especially if there was a new game mode with VR users playing in a god-view perspective. There's lots of potential for cool new mechanics there even for those who don't have VR, since it would be cross-compatible in that case.

@Blizzia Can confirm Thumper in VR is a real trip.

Splatoon in VR? Yes please. And how come there's no mention of Mario or Zelda? Remember that everything works well in VR. Nothing is off limits!

@Mountain_Man You will be consciously aware (sometimes - you'll totally forget every now and then) but your subconscious will treat it as real all the time. The point is that it's all the same. The photons hitting your eyes can be real or artificial, it makes no difference.

@Mountain_Man Physical displays meaning anything that isn't head-mounted. And yes, comfort is a concern today. But tomorrow's problems are not today's problems. VR will reach sunglasses level and be absolutely comfortable to wear all day. Will wearing nothing be more comfortable? Yes, but then you can't get your own IMAX theater and visit your friends across the world, even whilst on a plane journey.

As for isolation, you're not following VR much are you? Oculus already demonstrated mixed reality in VR. The headset scans your surroundings in real time and overlays it into VR. Eventually this will be a reconstruction that is lifelike. Then you can see someone on your real couch perfectly at the same time as a friend's avatar on a virtual couch. There will be no barrier between the real and virtual worlds; they will simply be one.

So you're actually wrong on this one. VR will be the most socially connecting technology ever made. Because you connect at distances with true intimacy and in person as well with what I just mentioned.

And just to add one final thing: There are already asymmetrical VR games where one person uses a headset and others use a gamepad.

@Mountain_Man People will never lose interest in VR. We're talking about a technology that can, in the near future, allow you to replace physical displays with a virtual theater with your friends in the same virtual space as you as lifelike avatars. The ability to move inside 360 videos, the ability to visit any real world location as if you are physically there, and lastly... gaming. It's going to revolutionize multiplayer gaming forever with player-driven avatars and fluid interaction between humans.

People like you only hold back progress.

@Mountain_Man There is nothing more promising than VR, sorry to say. Also, tell me, do you like Mario games? Because Astro Bot just released and is being heralded as the next Mario 64. Nintendo's games would fit VR perfectly and you'd be drooling all over them.

@retro_player_22 And why is this? Investment is still going fine and the tech can only get exponentially better. Every large improvement in a specification for a VR headset dramatically improves a game. If we're already seeing games near the 90 mark on now, imagine how great it could be with 1. Better games in general and 2. Improvements from the tech.

I predict VR will be a least 10-15x more popular next generation.

@Realnoize You're actually off base here. Valve are making 3 AAA VR games. Insomniac are making 1. Respawn are making one. From Software is making a AA game, Ready at Dawn have made a few and are making more AA games. Epic are making more, Ubisoft are making more. I mean I could go on and on. There's still loads of devs doing it.

This is still early days. Unlike 3D TV, companies will forever push VR until it snaps into the mainstream because it has the ultimate entertainment potential.

@ejf1984 Sigh, you just don't understand what VR is, do you? You think it's all extreme activity. No, that doesn't describe VR at all. VR is all forms of gaming. You can sit there and play a VR game with a gamepad or mouse / keyboard. You can sit there and use motion controls. You can stand and move around and use motion controls. And lastly you can play non-VR games in a virtual environment with virtual screens.

Portable systems will be replaced by AR / VR. There is no argument against this, it is going to happen because there is nothing that they offer over VR except other people being able to see your screen. You'll just have lightweight glasses that project an IMAX theater for you, or anything of your desire. Or if you still want to see the real world, the glasses will project into the real world instead.

Also no, your buddy doesn't work at Oculus, nice try. Otherwise he'd be consistently exposed to the many reasons why it will be mainstream.

Also you do realize that people are calling Astro Bot the Mario 64 of VR right? Platformers work BEST in VR, not outside of VR. And while 2D platformers don't make too much sense in VR, you can always play them on virtual screens. In a few years you could invite friends to a virtual LAN party all with photorealistic avatars and tracked movements and have a true social gathering no different from real life playing Dead Cells on a virtual home theater.

You're going to look back at this in 10 years and wonder what the heck you were thinking dismissing the possibility of VR going mainstream.

@WiltonRoots No. Shills almost never exist on the internet; people just see what they want to see.

(Not saying that's exactly what you're implying)

@WiltonRoots Eye strain and headaches can be totally fixed and likely quite soon. Varifocal displays from Oculus are a huge step towards this. Motion sickness might have been solved according to Palmer Luckey who is demonstrating something later this year.

Isolation can be solved as well in a few years by having the headset scan real life to merge it into VR.

@ejf1984 Well you do you, but I'd prefer playing VR 100000%.

@TheFongz That means mobile quite literally, a device that is mobile. Not a device that is comparable to mobile VR. (Gear VR)

If they don't have belief in standalone VR, what are they supposed to believe in? Because their 1 billion VR user goal isn't going to happen with PC VR. It requires all-in-one systems.

You can take the Oculus Quest into a warehouse and run around fully untethered in games like Robo Recall, Moss, SuperHot. That is fundamentally different to mobile VR.

@Razer He doesn't really know much about how VR headsets work. The point of the lenses is to allow the retina to focus on the display, which he either didn't know or glossed over. (It's his first time using VR so somehow I'm not surprised)

And he barely even gets into the topic of the vergence accommodation problem which is a vital aspect to bring up on this topic.

Yeah, overall not an expert on the subject, certainly not one to trust. I'd much rather test optical scientists working WITH VR as they know the ins and outs better than anyone, and so far nothing has come out saying there is long term damage.

Eye strain / fatigue and headaches are known issues but these are NOT long lasting damage. They are symptoms that are temporary and not harmful - and like I said they are fixable and probably won't ever exist in 5 years.

@Trajan It is: https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1942343732456615/

@Trajan Try Moss if you can. It's the perfect example of showcasing 3rd person and platforming in VR. Astro Bot might be an even better example but that releases next week.

@Razer I never made any claims like that. You're putting words into my mouth. And VR as a technology does not do anything to harm your eyes. Eye strain is the only negative aspect which isn't damaging and is clearly solvable. Irritation would be a result of dust, hair, or something else, not VR as a technology.

Also VR can be relaxing, that is a fact. Oculus Go is meant as a media consumption and relaxation device. The entire device exists to chill. Please know what you're talking about next time.

@TheFongz This isn't mobile VR. And it isn't anything like a Gear VR. This is the difference between a tablet / phone and a Nintendo Switch.

Standalone VR will likely be much bigger than the console market.