Official PlayStation 4 Thread

[Yoshi]

A huge percentage of the market for VR wasn't born yet, either, so they don't have any way to remember how shit it was except by reputation, and that's not a reputation the Rift or any of the other new devices shares.

Exactly. Ask Tain how old he was when Dactyl Nightmare was in arcades. He has a Rift dev kit now.

[Shin Johnpv]

The last time VR had an outing 19-20 years ago it failed because it was shit. A huge percentage of the market for VR wasn't born yet, either, so they don't have any way to remember how shit it was except by reputation, and that's not a reputation the Rift or any of the other new devices shares. 90s VR has very little to do with today's, and its stigma is dead and gone.

Keep telling yourself that.

[dave is ok]

even if you just expand the viewing field a little bit its still more expensive. Though if you're not letting people move their heads around and look at things, I'm not seeing how its anything other than a 3D display strapped to your head. I'm not saying this to be an ass or anything. I just don't see a difference between 3D on a monitor/screen with a locked viewpoint and 3D on a headset strapped to your head with a locked viewpoint.

Today's cameras probably won't be the ones doing the recording for tomorrow's hypothetical VR films

[Shin Johnpv]

Today's cameras probably won't be the ones doing the recording for tomorrow's hypothetical VR films

That doesn't change what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about all the compositing, and other visual effects done after primary shooting. I'm also talking about the physical effects done on set, that again can totally work from 1 angle and not another. The camera used to shoot that isn't going to change that work having to be done. By expanding the viewing plane, you're expanding the amount of that work that needs to be done. no camera is going to change that.

[dave is ok]

That doesn't change what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about all the compositing, and other visual effects done after primary shooting. I'm also talking about the physical effects done on set, that again can totally work from 1 angle and not another. The camera used to shoot that isn't going to change that work having to be done. By expanding the viewing plane, you're expanding the amount of that work that needs to be done. no camera is going to change that.

Not every movie is the fucking Avengers. There were movies before visual effects existed, you know. The effect of being "in the movie" will be plenty novel for a long time. Fuck, VR games and movies will probably be very similar as far as creation goes.

[Frogacuda]

It's an extremely informed opinion to have. I've been following it since OR first lit up the Internet. Since then, I have seen:

1. Endless drag-assing of release dates and vague pricing.
2. The introduction of a bunch of different standards.
3. The hardware that runs it well needs to be far more powerful than 98% of people have.
4. The fact that games need to be explicitly designed for VR, and current genres with few exceptions (flight sims, etc) don't really work with it.

This goes along with my initial reservations, which were that most people aren't going to buy a $300 (ha) unit so they don't use their big screen TV. My comment wasn't that VR is bad - I actually think 3D is kind of cool. But I don't see how you are going to get gazillions of people to try it and then buy a unit and then buy the games designed for it and then upgrade their hardware to play games on it.

You could argue the same thing about TV in 1947, when there was no real content and and an extremely high price point. And indeed it took some years after that to achieve mass adoption, but over time it got cheaper and the content grew. When a new medium actually offers something compelling, that's what happens. 3D wasn't that.

Also, #2 is kind of solving #1. Now that there are more players coming to the table, companies like Oculus are going to have to step up and get something to market. At least on the PC side, I don't think multiple standards will create a great deal of fragmentation either. You're going to see a unified compatibility standard before long.

They have though. You're acting like the Occulus Rift, and Sony's VR thing are some of the first VR experiences ever, they aren't.

Oh come on, you must be shitting me. They might not be the first units that attempt it, but they ARE the first (or at least the first the public has seen) that actually do what they're supposed to and make you feel like you're somewhere else. This VR works, earlier ones didn't. I've used older VR units too. From the 90s through the mid-200s dark ages. None of them did what Oculus is doing, even if they might have the same concept.

You sound like someone dismissing the iPad because we all saw the Newton and it's a joke. Sometimes people attempt shit before the technology is there, and VR has been retarded by that stigma ever since. But it's here now, and it's real in a way that it wasn't in the past.

[Joust Williams]

even if you just expand the viewing field a little bit its still more expensive. Though if you're not letting people move their heads around and look at things, I'm not seeing how its anything other than a 3D display strapped to your head. I'm not saying this to be an ass or anything. I just don't see a difference between 3D on a monitor/screen with a locked viewpoint and 3D on a headset strapped to your head with a locked viewpoint.

Moving your head around is still different from moving your body significantly far, and even still, yes I can tell you that sitting still and doing nothing in VR is different than 3D.

[Shin Johnpv]

Not every movie is the fucking Avengers. There were movies before visual effects existed, you know.

You realize that pretty much EVERY single move made today has some kind of VFX work in it right? I mean romantic comedies and shit are using digital set extensions left and right. You watch tv for 10 minutes and you've seen an ass ton of VFX work. However going back to my earlier comment, that the movies people are going to want to see in VR are going to be the effects heavy movies. What is going to have a larger draw to see in VR, The Notebook 2, or Avengers 5?

[Frogacuda]

I've yet to be convinced that VR films are going to work very well. That's kind of a different argument. I don't personally find the idea of traditional narrative film in VR very compelling. I think VR is going to be better suited to more exploration and discovery-based story telling where people can go at their own pace.

[dave is ok]

You realize that pretty much EVERY single move made today has some kind of VFX work in it right? I mean romantic comedies and shit are using digital set extensions left and right. You watch tv for 10 minutes and you've seen an ass ton of VFX work. However going back to my earlier comment, that the movies people are going to want to see in VR are going to be the effects heavy movies. What is going to have a larger draw to see in VR, The Notebook 2, or Avengers 5?

You're assuming every VR film will be a cross medium release of a major studio blockbuster. I can understand your feasibility argument if that is how narrow your view is.