4 ms·
I don't think anyone missed the point, it's just a nonsensical comparison. The implication is that Vive and Oculus foolhardily over complicated their solution t
by carlosdp 8y ago
I don't think anyone missed the point, it's just a nonsensical comparison. The implication is that Vive and Oculus foolhardily over complicated their solution to the controller tracking problem, and Nintendo did the same thing much simpler. (The space pen vs Russian pencil)
But they are doing entirely different things. Labo is cool, but is entirely unrelated to VR tracking technology.
- sanderjd 8y ago> The implication is that Vive and Oculus foolhardily over complicated their solution to the controller tracking problem, and Nintendo did the same thing much simpler. You just missed the point again. That's not the implication at all. The implication is not that they did the same thing, it's that they did a different thing, which is simpler, but is still a good solution for the metric they are optimizing: fun.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- monsieurbanana 8y agoThere's no implication here to interpret here, the commentator did directly compare the two systems. Here's a quote from the comment: > Nintendo delivers 80% of the experience
- sanderjd 8y agoThey were comparing the experience and the fun, not the systems.
- yazaddaruvala 8y agoThe goal of all gaming systems, VR, Labo or console, is to be a fun experience. I agree they are all targeting a different fidelity for emmersion, but they are all targeting the same fidelity for fun. Why can't I compare two very different implementations trying to achieve a similar core goal?
- carlosdp 8y ago... a Yo-Yo is fun too and is 1% of the cost of the Labo, is that a fair comparison?