4 ms·

It's hard to say until the technology gets to the point where you can start to match what a monitor does. You'd need a 8k or probably higher screen for each e

by treis 4y ago

It's hard to say until the technology gets to the point where you can start to match what a monitor does. You'd need a 8k or probably higher screen for each eye plus the graphics card to drive it at ~144hz. Then if you want it portable you need a battery to drive it. Once we're there then we can see what sort of future VR has.

taeric 4y ago
I don't buy it. VR will always, by definition, be a race to feature parity with things in the real world. And escapism is often more about not replicating real life, such that all of the tactical feedback that goes into the majority of what folks thing will work in VR is as likely to be the reason to avoid it. Think about it, even the amazing open world games like Zelda will be nigh inaccessible in a VR world where you have to actually climb. Yes, you can get some sweeping visuals where you can turn your head to see the landscape, but a large TV already goes a long way to getting that, with much much better controls for the movement. So, you can get enhanced "you can turn your head to look around," but at the tremendous cost of "everything else about moving and interacting is completely broken. You will still need obviously untenable item management. Want to have many weapons? It will be hilariously off looking compared to everything else in the world. Can it help with some desktop management and such for work? I mean, maybe? It will definitely be a good aide. I'd wager the high level workers are already "retreating into their brain" for a lot of their work, such that I don't expect miracles out of AR assistance. Robotics and control do have a lot of promise, of course. But, again, I'm more questioning gaming and entertainment.
- treis 4y ago
  >Think about it, even the amazing open world games like Zelda will be nigh inaccessible in a VR world where you have to actually climb. Even if climbing is an challenge insurmountable then you'd just make games with out it. Elevation changes could be handled by predefined paths. >Yes, you can get some sweeping visuals where you can turn your head to see the landscape, but a large TV already goes a long way to getting that, with much much better controls for the movement I think you're way underselling the impact of VR. It's a massive upgrade and a different level of immersion. You don't see people face planting trying to jump off a building when it's a TV. Plus those stationary treadmill things look cool as shit. If you get that working plus the headset it's really something. Even just taking an evening walk through Paris/Tokyo/the Himalayas would be bonkers if all the technology comes together.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I think you are under thinking how much effort there is to "make it an immersive experience." The /vast/ majority of game travel time is always with characters that are running. It is a bit of a gag in games. Try using the characters at walking speed. And then think of transferring that to "we want you to feel like you are in a vast world.... that you can physically traverse in less than a day. Probably less than an hour."

by treis 4y ago

taeric 4y ago

I don't buy it. VR will always, by definition, be a race to feature parity with things in the real world. And escapism is often more about not replicating real life, such that all of the tactical feedback that goes into the majority of what folks thing will work in VR is as likely to be the reason to avoid it. Think about it, even the amazing open world games like Zelda will be nigh inaccessible in a VR world where you have to actually climb. Yes, you can get some sweeping visuals where you can turn your head to see the landscape, but a large TV already goes a long way to getting that, with much much better controls for the movement. So, you can get enhanced "you can turn your head to look around," but at the tremendous cost of "everything else about moving and interacting is completely broken. You will still need obviously untenable item management. Want to have many weapons? It will be hilariously off looking compared to everything else in the world. Can it help with some desktop management and such for work? I mean, maybe? It will definitely be a good aide. I'd wager the high level workers are already "retreating into their brain" for a lot of their work, such that I don't expect miracles out of AR assistance. Robotics and control do have a lot of promise, of course. But, again, I'm more questioning gaming and entertainment.

treis 4y ago
>Think about it, even the amazing open world games like Zelda will be nigh inaccessible in a VR world where you have to actually climb. Even if climbing is an challenge insurmountable then you'd just make games with out it. Elevation changes could be handled by predefined paths. >Yes, you can get some sweeping visuals where you can turn your head to see the landscape, but a large TV already goes a long way to getting that, with much much better controls for the movement I think you're way underselling the impact of VR. It's a massive upgrade and a different level of immersion. You don't see people face planting trying to jump off a building when it's a TV. Plus those stationary treadmill things look cool as shit. If you get that working plus the headset it's really something. Even just taking an evening walk through Paris/Tokyo/the Himalayas would be bonkers if all the technology comes together.
- taeric 4y ago
  I think you are under thinking how much effort there is to "make it an immersive experience." The /vast/ majority of game travel time is always with characters that are running. It is a bit of a gag in games. Try using the characters at walking speed. And then think of transferring that to "we want you to feel like you are in a vast world.... that you can physically traverse in less than a day. Probably less than an hour."