[wco81]

One big criterium for that kind of immersion is photorealistic graphics. So you turn your head and your FOV rotates as it would in real life. But you're still aware that you're viewing computer graphics.

Even cinema-quality CGI may not be enough for immersion.

There used to be these Viewmaster viewers, with discs of stereoscopic images of faraway places. 3D effect was good and it was photos. But it wasn't really more immersive than looking at travel photos in a book.

[Blazkowicz]

Originally Posted by Richard

I've said it before: the problem with VR is how user conveys movement, not head-tracking. It doesn't matter if they're able to sell those goggles for 50 euros, I'm not going to put them on my head if I have to press buttons/sticks to move my character around. What happens when you have to look down at your controller, or <shudder> your keyboard?

I would be fine, even or especially with the keyboard
I'm not a laptop user though, I've only dealt with standard layout keyboard forever so my finger have been hard-wired into knowing the position of every letter or key already.
a HMD would be funny, esp. if used to the point you have no apparent display besides it.

but it's a bit over the top. unless you head-track to look at additional web browser instances, text terminals and other funny stuff! the caveat is, if you're displaying your apps as textures in a small 3D world, or just drawn on a virtual cylinder, then you need very high dpi. I find 3D accelerated desktop to be useless, because when you use their only feature : zooming out windows to look at all of them at a glance, text becomes unreadable and you can't make out what they are. (file managers and terminals all look alike). even with a small transformation of their "distance" and orientation, they look bad.

so, ungodly high dpi is needed for a HMD to be really great.
but I'm still delighted at Carmack taking a look at the problem and slashing the latencies. even if HMDs become workable because of huge improvements in gyrometers, accelerometers etc. and computing power.

motion controls are OLD : nintendo came out with them for the NES! (the Powerglove). it was a failure. but they still released motion controls 15 years later, with the Wii. useless tech became useful, with increased precision and lowered latency.

wow. 15 years ago I badly wanted a VFX-1! to play Descent under MS-DOS.
incidentally, it was about the price of Carmack's set, but it got nowhere besides being the most well-known HMD back then. no way my parents would have forked the monies. I'm sure it would have run Descent and nothing else.
http://museum.bounce-gaming.net/vfx1.html

[3dcgi]

Originally Posted by Billy Idol

hm, I am not sure. I have also my PC hooked up my plasma. I am sitting about 2 feets away. it's a 42" TV. Playing my PC games or console games 3D doesn't really feel different.
Problem is: you do not only need the appropriate tec, but also smart game developers who use this tec to improve the actual gaming experience!
Just throw in 3D (like in movies) does not really substantial enhance the experience imo.

Skyrim wasn't created with stereoscopic display in mind, but I played with it enabled on the PC and the difference was dramatic. I really enjoyed it.

I'm not excited about HMD's because I don't think I want my entire field of vision consumed by the game. Maybe I'll feel differently if I try it, but the biggest hurdle for me will be not getting sick while playing.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by 3dcgi

Skyrim wasn't created with stereoscopic display in mind, but I played with it enabled on the PC and the difference was dramatic. I really enjoyed it.

Yeah when 3d works it makes a dramatic difference IMO, I'll have to try it out on Skyrim when I eventually get it.

[Bigduo209]

Originally Posted by wco81

Local multiplayer. Who has the time to do that once they graduate and grow up? Sure the Wii and some of the motion dance games were hits at parties. But aren't those fads over?

There are people with families, maybe you want play more than just the Wii-centric stuff with your siblings and cousins while they're at your place. Also roommates and close friends who are in the same room with you.

Friend: That's a cool looking game, can I play?

You: Nope, you'll have to buy it separately on your console, and then go back to your place to setup your online pass with your online account so we can play.

Friend: Uh huh...

Online multiplayer shouldn't be the only option, both options should be accessible if the given opportunity presents itself.

[kache]

Originally Posted by Bigduo209

There are people with families, maybe you want play more than just the Wii-centric stuff with your siblings and cousins while they're at your place. Also roommates and close friends who are in the same room with you.

Friend: That's a cool looking game, can I play?

You: Nope, you'll have to buy it separately on your console, and then go back to your place to setup your online pass with your online account so we can play.

Friend: Uh huh...

Online multiplayer shouldn't be the only option, both options should be accessible if the given opportunity presents itself.

But, provided the console is sold with 2 VR sets, wouldn't VR be preferrable to split screen for 2 ppl playing?

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by kache

But, provided the console is sold with 2 VR sets, wouldn't VR be preferrable to split screen for 2 ppl playing?

If you're playing on your VR headset, how does your cousin get to see it?

[kache]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

If you're playing on your VR headset, how does your cousin get to see it?

The output can be relayed to the television too, potentially. Getting others to see your performance is not a real issue.
The issue, as stated above, was to permit 2 people in the same room to play the game against one another or together, and using multiple VR sets would permit to do this, without compromising the fairness (which is often an issue with split screen).

[fearsomepirate]

Originally Posted by Richard

People play CoD because most of their friends play CoD, like a law onto itself now.

There are too many of them that played Modern Warfare together in the dorms IMO. I know because my students (well, the men, anyway) showed up to class red-eyed the next day! I think seeing, interacting, and playing together can't be underestimated. When it comes to making the sale, Playing > Watching > Hearing. Heck, the only reason I ever got into the series was after playing Spec Ops in MW2 at a friend's place.

Originally Posted by BigDuo209

I honestly wonder if we'll ever see local-multiplayer make a serious splash in the next-gen of gaming? It seems like outside of Wii(-U) games, kid-friendly PS3/360 games, and a very few genre-specific titles, it's something most game companies are moving away from. I only say that because it's likely they'll increase the reliance on online multiplayer for profitable purposes.

Definitely. The nice thing about a competitive market is it works like natural selection. Entrepreneurs that figure out what people want and how to get them to it succeed; those that don't fail. Obviously, Nintendo is very focused on the fact that playing together is still an important part of fun and can't simply be replaced by an online connection. But Treyarch, Bungie, and Infinity Ward are IMO very responsive to the consumers. In the COD series, there are more and more offline and co-op options with each release. Look at how much stuff there is for you to do offline with your friends in Black Ops and MW3 vs COD2 or MW1. It wouldn't be in there if they weren't getting a positive response. I think there will always be developers who figure out how to do that well and sell games by it.

[RudeCurve]

Originally Posted by 3dcgi

I'm not excited about HMD's because I don't think I want my entire field of vision consumed by the game. Maybe I'll feel differently if I try it, but the biggest hurdle for me will be not getting sick while playing.

+1

JC needs to be aware that his RAGE game causes some people like me to have motion sickness...so whatever goggles he's developed will need to NOT have this bad side effect!

[tongue_of_colicab]

I'm sure they can design around motion sickness to a certain extent but the fact is that you just can't trick all your organs into thinking you are moving so people who are more sensative to motion sickness than other will probably always run into situations where they might start feeling sick.

Something I'm much more worried about is the effect on my eyes. Having screens so close can't be good.

[Arwin]

The reason why I get motion sickness with some FPS is precisely because there is head-movement while I am not actually moving my head. If that kind of thing isn't simulated, I never have any problems. So if an HMD has the camera follow my own head movements, I expect less motion sickness than when the game does this for me.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Arwin

The reason why I get motion sickness with some FPS is precisely because there is head-movement while I am not actually moving my head. If that kind of thing isn't simulated, I never have any problems. So if an HMD has the camera follow my own head movements, I expect less motion sickness than when the game does this for me.

Yep. motion sickness is caused by the optical sensors giving information that the other senses, particualrly balance, aren't matching. A camera that tracks the head should generate less motion sickness.

[Simon F]

Originally Posted by wco81

How many people use AR apps. with their smart phones? They're available but they haven't seemed to light the world on fire.

At High Performance Graphics this year, there was a fascinating keynote, "Computer Graphics meets Computer Vision", by Jon Olick on using AR . It seems to me that the demo he put together (in ~3weeks!) could be a huge hit.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by jonabbey

I remember going to SIGGRAPH Dallas in 1990 when Jaron Lanier was leading the baby VR boom. The tech was honestly too primitive back then (remember Dactyl Terror?), but it's been 22 years, it's got to be time for another go at it.

Yep, I remember playing this in '91:

http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=dac...etail&id=12493

[Blazkowicz]

wow I played it as a tech demo, the game was set with invulnerability. I was maybe less than ten year old. it was in a technology oriented theme park, which had all matters of stuff (3D Imax, moving/vibrating seats, 60 fps cinema, a huge video wall made of a lot of CRTs)

[idsn6]

Originally Posted by Simon F

At High Performance Graphics this year, there was a fascinating keynote, "Computer Graphics meets Computer Vision", by Jon Olick on using AR . It seems to me that the demo he put together (in ~3weeks!) could be a huge hit.

Unannounced platform, but tagged with "Google glasses Glass"?

[MfA]

The existing Google Glass prototypes only overlay peripheral vision, the only announced consumer AR glasses with an overlay across the center of vision are from Lumus Optical AFAIK (there are some monochrome version for the military too) and that has pretty low FoV.

It's probably just another phone or tablet demo, meh ...

[3dcgi]

Maybe with commentary the Firefall video would have been impressive. As it is I don't see why I should be impressed.

[Xpuntar]

Originally Posted by joker454

Regarding vr helmets, am I the only one that has no interest in wearing gaming accesories while I play games? I won't wear 3d glasses let alone a helmet! It just seems too cumbersome. Maybe it's because I tend to play core games while lying back on the couch, can't imagine how a helmet would work there.

You are not (I am already wearing glasses)

Sometimes I wish certain game types would be more physically demanding so ... I am waiting for a holodeck

[Simon F]

Originally Posted by 3dcgi

Maybe with commentary the Firefall video would have been impressive. As it is I don't see why I should be impressed.

Perhaps you should have attended.

The talk reviewed much of the current state of the art of comp vision + comp graphics, and showed why current AR systems (on various games/mobile platforms) are not terribly convincing.

[Entropy]

The most extraordinary I've encountered in this genre was the SGI-powered virtual cave, where you actually walked into a small room, with images (potentially stereoscopic) were projected on all surfaces around you. It was bought due to a local politician having his mind blown on a on a planning trip to the US, and he saw to that it was bought to the local institution. They then turned to us in order to, well, have something to actually DO with it. "Wouldn't it be nice to, you know, walk around inside a protein". Idiots. But it was one of the tech high points of my life. Way cool, and useless. But cool. Have to respect that.

[Gubbi]

Originally Posted by Entropy

The most extraordinary I've encountered in this genre was the SGI-powered virtual cave, where you actually walked into a small room, with images (potentially stereoscopic) were projected on all surfaces around you. It was bought due to a local politician having his mind blown on a on a planning trip to the US, and he saw to that it was bought to the local institution. They then turned to us in order to, well, have something to actually DO with it. "Wouldn't it be nice to, you know, walk around inside a protein". Idiots. But it was one of the tech high points of my life. Way cool, and useless. But cool. Have to respect that.

We had one at the university I studied at. I believe it was mostly used for playing Quake 2 (great way to convince potential new students to start their studies there).

Cheers

[Sigfried1977]

Originally Posted by wco81

One big criterium for that kind of immersion is photorealistic graphics. So you turn your head and your FOV rotates as it would in real life. But you're still aware that you're viewing computer graphics.

Even cinema-quality CGI may not be enough for immersion.

There used to be these Viewmaster viewers, with discs of stereoscopic images of faraway places. 3D effect was good and it was photos. But it wasn't really more immersive than looking at travel photos in a book.

Only if you lack any sort of imagination whatsoever or are entirely incapable of suspending your disbelief. I can immerse myself in cartoon visuals just fine. (probably more so than in uncanny photo-realistic visuals) I think the level and the quality of interactivity is far more vital to a VR experience than the visuals are.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Gubbi

We had one at the university I studied at. I believe it was mostly used for playing Quake 2 (great way to convince potential new students to start their studies there).

I knew it would find its uses!
Seriously, if you regarded it as described here as an experiment in human/computer generated environment interaction, you could disregard its outrageous price and lack of utility, and simply enjoy it for the experience it could give.

Incidentally, even then it used 120Hz projection onto the surfaces, interactivity over rendering realism indeed.

Not everything has to be practical or possible to make into a palatable mass market device to be worthwhile to explore. The Carmack VR device is something I suspect I will have to own, lack of utility be damned. It will be interesting to experience and experiment with, and once I'm done with that, the next geek in line can buy it cheap from me, and have fun with it.