4 ms·
The critique you are responding to has nothing to do with computing power, or really any sort of linear extrapolation from where we are, yet you frame it as a q
by oconnore 10y ago
The critique you are responding to has nothing to do with computing power, or really any sort of linear extrapolation from where we are, yet you frame it as a question of frame rates and "minimal technology package"? I'm not sure I agree with the OP, but you're surely missing their point.
- vessenes 10y agoThanks, allow me to amplify. I used those early systems, definitely ones better than the Jaguar at least, and in the same year it was released. And, I'm saying anyone who thinks the Jaguar's failure means modern VR is doomed is missing some super basic things about the threshold at which VR is compelling. And, I'm saying we are just over that threshold, sometimes, with some experiences, and that there was never a snowball's chance in hell that any kind of compelling VR experience could have been had in the early '90s. If the Jaguar had been compelling, the liability issues would have been sorted, full stop. Anecdotally, I've found even my 70+ year old father-in-law responds well to Chaperone bounds in the Vive, he 'gets' them immediately. A friend who is partially disabled is also successful at using the Vive, despite some mobility issues. None of that (or the attendant safety) matters, though, if the tech isn't compelling.