🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:43:00 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>I personally see VR at the moment as a fad in the hype phase.
>
>The problem is. The current generation of consoles is to underpowered to 
>deliver a decent VR experience at enough framerate.
>On the PC side you really need a powerhouse to drive those things.

This was part of my point, though.  We are back to the point where the
next generation of 3D immersiveness simply is not doable on console
hardware.  The size and cost to manufacture/price point of a console
are obstacles, and the one benefit (playing on a big TV) is no longer
present.

>Secondly, there still is the input problem unsolved.
>Third, I am not sure how good it is for the eyes in the long run if you 
>plug a screen straight in front of your eyes at 3-5cm distance.
>Then there is the problem that you basically have to wear a helmet to play.

Yes and this is a big limitation.  I don't want to wear an apparatus
to play games.  However, if the experience is immersive enough, it can
still be a cool hobby.  A lot of things can be done with VR that are
very cool beyond just gaming.  It will take time before the technology
gets to the point where we are only wearing a pair of very comfortable
sunglass-sized goggles, but just like with the early gigantic mobile
phones we have to start somewhere.

>VR will go the way of television 3d, at the moment there is lots of 
>press behind it. A load of early adopters will be burned and in the end
>it will be there but relegated to its nieche for another 10 years with 
>2-3 games per year supporting it in the long run.

I agree VR won't replace PC gaming as we know it any time soon, but
with all the potential uses I don't think it's quite the same as 3D
televisions.