• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • 🏆 Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! Design and model a mechanical creature, mechanized animal, a futuristic robotic being, or anything else your imagination can tinker with! 📅 Submissions close on June 30, 2024. Don't miss this opportunity to let your creativity shine! Enter now and show us your mechanical masterpiece! 🔗 Click here to enter!

Is the HTC Vive the future of gaming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
After watching my two favorite LPers discover the HTC Vive for the first time, I can't help but think "wow... so this is what gaming will be in like 10 years for now?".

Obviously, watching this video on Youtube will be weird, since none of this is actual 3D for the viewer (also, the audio is bad because they are standing in the room, so no close micing). But you can see how Stacy is looking around the scenery and how the screen follows her head movement.
And later she is touching things in the scenery and the scenery properly responds.




According to their reactions, the vive actually feels like you are standing in the scenery, not just like sitting in front of a 3D screen. So it's not like going to a 3D movie at all.
Also, I like how the hands respond to what you are doing with the controller scepters. You can see her write stuff in the air in the second movie.

Also, you can see some reactions to something that the brain does not fully grasp, for example her reaction to having disembodied hands or having a jellyfish swim right through her.

It's also interesting to note how the movement of the scenery in the third video actually affects the player. For example, Mari tells Stacy to pretend that when the scenery is moving, to actually imagine the ground moving so that your brain doesn't get confused.
Also, she recommends to stand on the ground without your shoes on, so that you have the feeling of your carpet as a "grounding point", to remind you that this is not real.



So yeah, I can't help but wonder what this could mean for gaming in the future? What if we get actual games with that? What if you can actually fly an aircraft, swing an actual sword at your enemies, fire a virtual gun with your actual real-life accuracy?
... and obviously, what if those wobbly Jellyfish were actually equally wobbly secondary reproductive organs of your MMORPG Sorceress?

What do you guys think? Another waste of resources or an actual step into the future of VR gaming?
 
Last edited:
Level 9
Joined
May 21, 2014
Messages
580
It is an actual step, I must say. I'm actually pretty amazed. There is still a difference though; factors like how you use it, etc.

If it's about "gaming" and not scoped to "VR Gaming", then I think these two will go into their separate ways. VR Gaming is really just... different. It's completely another world other than playing.

I'd say that this is not a complete waste. This is actually a huge step, but there are also factors if the people would accept it though. But based on technology only, I'm really impressed already.
 
Level 16
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,579
It's a step forward but I don't think it's something for actual games because a bunch of things.Off the top of my head is that, first is that it's only limited to first person. Second, you are limited to slow paced games as fast paced ones that involve a lot of moving around would most likely cause motion sickness. Lastly, It requires a high-end computer to run decently.
I don't see VR as it is right now to be the future of gaming but maybe in the future when they make something like that in SAO.

Anyways. Not really interested in VR as of now. Prefer augmented reality instead of VR.
 
What does a phone manufacturer have to do with 3D gaming experience?
Is that a serious question? Obviously, an industry specialized on cramming the most power into the least amount of space and applying loads of cutting-edge sensor tech and high resolution miniature displays is not the right choice for VR periphery?

Who do you expect this to do? Sony? Microsoft?

It's a step forward but I don't think it's something for actual games because a bunch of things.Off the top of my head is that, first is that it's only limited to first person. Second, you are limited to slow paced games as fast paced ones that involve a lot of moving around would most likely cause motion sickness. Lastly, It requires a high-end computer to run decently.
I don't see VR as it is right now to be the future of gaming but maybe in the future when they make something like that in SAO.

Anyways. Not really interested in VR as of now. Prefer augmented reality instead of VR.
Good points. But I guess it really depends on the genre and/or new inventions in terms of periphery.

For example, I could imagine VR going huge in the simulation genre. Driving vehicles, airplanes, spacecraft, etc.
Basicly everything except games that require you to run around a lot. Which pretty much excludes only classic first person shooters or adventures.

Also, who says that walking around is a desirable feature of VR? Sure, I could imagine some nice synergy here ("Play your favorite shooter and improve your fitness while doing it!"), but I think a much more "gamey" experience could be just sitting on your couch and moving around with a typical control stick on your scepter just like in classic FPS games.
VR is cool enough with just the interactivity of touching stuff and actually using your hands. No reason why we really need the walking part for it to feel truly immersive.

Last, I don't even think that this is truly exclusive to first person perspective. After all, it's the best 3D effect we have so far. So even a third person game could feel much more immersive.
And I could imagine VR to revolutionize the way we interact with the UI of games. Just imagine being able to manage your inventory by actually "grabbing" stuff and moving it around with your hands instead of using a mouse.

Or remember those cool holographic swipey screens of the Avatar movie?
 
Last edited:

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
Obviously, an industry specialized on cramming the most power into the least amount of space and applying loads of cutting-edge sensor tech and high resolution miniature displays is not the right choice for VR periphery?
Seeing how there are half a dozen separate VR companies specializing in creating VR technology it just looks like another try hard.

I have no idea what people are even going to do with all this VR. Conventional movies are not possible with it. Conventional playing spaces are not possible. Conventional gameplay mechanics are not possible. I keep getting a feeling VR will end up the way of the Kinetic with a few hardcore supporters but not as much support as people hoped.
 
Level 36
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
4,396
I don't know, I don't think VR gaming will get popular enough to completely replace the good old screen and controller.
On the other hand, though, VR seems like a pretty sweet thing for, say, watching television. Such as basketball, football
and other kinds of sports live. I tried it once at my brother's place, watched a basketball match where my "camera" was
placed right under the basket on one of the sides, and it felt like I was right there, right on the edge of the play-field.

Graphic was shit, jagged and weird, but that's to be expected, it still felt and looked very real.
 
I don't know, I don't think VR gaming will get popular enough to completely replace the good old screen and controller.
I agree on that. But maybe that isn't needed? I could imagine VR take a niché market like the Wii did. Nobody compares the Wii to the PS4 or Xbox for that matter, but it's still running strong despite demanding games specifically designed for the control scheme.

On the other hand, though, VR seems like a pretty sweet thing for, say, watching television. Such as basketball, football
and other kinds of sports live.
Absolutely. Although I fear that it might make conventional theatres obsolete, since it's way more likely for the home consumer to have a handful of VR devices than a whole cinema to provide them.

Graphic was shit, jagged and weird, but that's to be expected, it still felt and looked very real.
The processing power needed to render for VR is basicly doubled, so it might take a while for hardware to catch up with modern era graphics.


Seeing how there are half a dozen separate VR companies specializing in creating VR technology it just looks like another try hard.
Then again, pushing a new idea forward is best done by big global players than "half of dozen seperate VR companies".
To be honest, I'm glad that another global player took a try on this after google. If these giants can not succeed, then noone will.

Judging from the reactions of all the LPers and Youtubers that tried the Vive, I feel like this might create a much bigger hype than the Oculus Rift.

I have no idea what people are even going to do with all this VR. Conventional movies are not possible with it.
Wait, what? Who said that? Of course movies are possible with this. We already have the tech required to shoot VR movies.

Conventional playing spaces are not possible.
Why? It's just a matter of creating satisfying periphery and control schemes. A mixture of controller and actual physical interaction? Absolutely possible!

Conventional gameplay mechanics are not possible.
Again, why would you think that? I'm not even sure what "conventional gameplay mechanics" are.

I keep getting a feeling VR will end up the way of the Kinetic with a few hardcore supporters but not as much support as people hoped.
That all depends on the early adopters, as always. But I don't think that this is the same as the Kinect. Nobody ever asked for the Kinect. But VR has always been a thing for gamers and the movie industry since the Star Wars Holodeck.

Like, literally, Kinect and VR are apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
Wait, what? Who said that? Of course movies are possible with this. We already have the tech required to shoot VR movies.
Not in full surround 3D, only in 3D static shots. They are researching techniques to make full surround 3D films.

The biggest problem is getting people to face in the right direction when action happens. In normal films the camera angle automatically faces the action as intended by the director. However in full surround 3D you need to rotate your head to face the action and the cameras cannot change frequently or it will disorientate you. As such they need to use theatrical style effects and sounds to try and get the player to constantly face the action.
Why? It's just a matter of creating satisfying periphery and control schemes. A mixture of controller and actual physical interaction? Absolutely possible!
Just like Kinetic promised to some extent. Motion controls never will work well which is why Wii U switched to their tablet controller rather than more Wii motes.
Again, why would you think that? I'm not even sure what "conventional gameplay mechanics" are.
Think games like street fighter, super smash brothers, DotA 2, Halo, CoD, etc. Those do not work with motion controls and probably work even less with immersive 3D.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 45
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
9,529
Not in full surround 3D, only in 3D static shots. They are researching techniques to make full surround 3D films.
Actually, yeah they do. I was as surprised to hear this as you might imagine, but those 3D-ball-camera-things? They just take loads of pictures & a computer stitches them all together.

I mean, have you seen Youtube3D? Insaaaaaane.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
Actually, yeah they do. I was as surprised to hear this as you might imagine, but those 3D-ball-camera-things? They just take loads of pictures & a computer stitches them all together.

I mean, have you seen Youtube3D? Insaaaaaane.
The technology exists, but actually making a film out of it does not. Basically they have no idea how to direct one in a sane way.

Standard cinematographic techniques cannot be used as you have very limited control over the camera. Where as normally you could use techniques like close ups, pans, zooms etc to emphasise something these are not possible. You also cannot perform sudden camera changes as they disorientate the viewer. Even the viewing angle you have no control over. How do you get people to follow what is going on when they could end up facing the wrong direction and miss it all?

Even producing such scenes is a hugely difficult. Where as normally you only need the scene to be perfect from one angle, in full 3D it has to be perfect from all angels. This means that you cannot have conventional production practices such as half sets and need to construct a fully 3D set with only the actors inside it. If you go with traditional half sets then you need expensive CGI to mask the other half of the set, a huge cost. Even set design cannot be conventional as in normal cinematography you only need the set to be perfect within the chosen camera shots while in full surround 3D viewers will ultimately scrutinize every single detail of the scene because they can see so much of it.

One thing it opens up is the potential for multiple story lines to be happening at once that only multiple screenings can let you follow. For example, the main plot could be happening at once side of the room or near you while in the distance to your back when viewing the main plot actors could be performing a sub plot. This would work very well for some films such as with Harry Potter they could follow one of the hundreds of missed background elements from the book. It could also make for some pretty awesome action scenes such as in a Marvel Avengers film Captain America could be talking and be the focus while in the background you have Iron Man flying around shooting stuff and Hulk smashing things.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 45
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
9,529
The technology exists, but actually making a film out of it does not. Basically they have no idea how to direct one in a sane way.

Standard cinematographic techniques cannot be used as you have very limited control over the camera. Where as normally you could use techniques like close ups, pans, zooms etc to emphasise something these are not possible. You also cannot perform sudden camera changes as they disorientate the viewer. Even the viewing angle you have no control over. How do you get people to follow what is going on when they could end up facing the wrong direction and miss it all?

Even producing such scenes is a hugely difficult. Where as normally you only need the scene to be perfect from one angle, in full 3D it has to be perfect from all angels. This means that you cannot have conventional production practices such as half sets and need to construct a fully 3D set with only the actors inside it. If you go with traditional half sets then you need expensive CGI to mask the other half of the set, a huge cost. Even set design cannot be conventional as in normal cinematography you only need the set to be perfect within the chosen camera shots while in full surround 3D viewers will ultimately scrutinize every single detail of the scene because they can see so much of it.

One thing it opens up is the potential for multiple story lines to be happening at once that only multiple screenings can let you follow. For example, the main plot could be happening at once side of the room or near you while in the distance to your back when viewing the main plot actors could be performing a sub plot. This would work very well for some films such as with Harry Potter they could follow one of the hundreds of missed background elements from the book. It could also make for some pretty awesome action scenes such as in a Marvel Avengers film Captain America could be talking and be the focus while in the background you have Iron Man flying around shooting stuff and Hulk smashing things.
Oh, hey, you'll get no argument from me there; I'm well aware we're just beginning to scratch the surface of the "how", the 'infrastructure' if you will behind 3D movies. But when your response to this
Zwiebelechen said:
We already have the tech required to shoot VR movies.
is this
Dr. Super Good said:
Not in full surround 3D, only in 3D static shots.
, then my correction stands.
 
I have high hopes for VR, particularly because of the wide-support by industries:
  • HTC Vive is a godsend. Even though Facebook buying Oculus is what brought the initial hype, HTC brought it to a new level. Every person I spoke to said the Vive is unlike any other VR headset. It is really demanding at the moment ($$ and power), but that won't stop industries from jumping in while its hot.
  • Unity and Unreal Engine. They already support VR quite well.
  • Open source software like OpenVR (Valve).
  • Some companies already have big plans for VR and have already created divisions for it, e.g. Ubisoft.
Because of all this, VR will be a huge deal despite its potential issues. Companies are pouring tons of money & research into it already, so they'll make it a thing regardless of whether it is accessible.

Since it is supported by PC's and has a lot of indy potential (with Unity/Unreal), I doubt it'll be as niche as Wii and Kinect. I think peripherals will be niche, but not VR itself. Nothing will stop an indy developer. If money is a problem, crowd-funding is there to make it happen.

As for the practical issues--motion sickness, headaches, stabilization, etc.--that's where R&D comes in. I went to a facebook tech talk and they are pouring tons of time into getting those problems worked out, and if you go to any showcase today you'll see the progress (not with the Oculus in particular, but just VR platforms in general). And then there are a ton of other people testing out long term effects, consulting, etc. This one guy I spoke to was going to marathon VR--wear a headset for 24 hours and figure out what happens. It was experimental science at its finest!

DSG said:
The technology exists, but actually making a film out of it does not. Basically they have no idea how to direct one in a sane way.

Standard cinematographic techniques cannot be used as you have very limited control over the camera. Where as normally you could use techniques like close ups, pans, zooms etc to emphasise something these are not possible. You also cannot perform sudden camera changes as they disorientate the viewer. Even the viewing angle you have no control over. How do you get people to follow what is going on when they could end up facing the wrong direction and miss it all?

Funnily enough, I spoke to a director who was doing just that. I, too, thought it was pretty insane. But he had some weird ideas about arrows or pausing, or just doing nothing. It'll definitely be weird and it won't be at all what we associate "movies" with, but it'll be an interesting experience for whoever watches it. :p

-------

Overall, VR is promising! Especially with the Vive. I don't know if the Vive will be the future of gaming, but I definitely see it as the key player for the future of VR.
 
Only interesting application is for first person game else it's gimmick stufff not worth 800$.
Require too much effort when I want to play video I want to sit ass and play fast and easy.
VR is expensive, fragile and cumbersome hardware that you have to pack and unpack each time you want to use it.You can't just let it lay around like hearphone.
Then you do the gimmick shit for 1 hour and get dizzy.Time to pack away carefully the whole stuff.

It's gimmick like wiimote.This is the opposite of ergonomy and that's what make it fun for 3 min then you get tired of doing silly motion just to make your character jump and figure out simply pressing a button to jump was a better idea.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 45
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
9,529
It's gimmick like wiimote.This is the opposite of ergonomy and that's what make it fun for 3 min then you get tired of doing silly motion just to make your character jump and figure out simply pressing a button to jump was a better idea.
LnfpR4d.gif
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
2,123
Sounds more like HTV Vive is the future of motion sickness.

It might be a new cool way of experiencing games, but this sure isn't the future of gaming. There are people (like myself) who would prefer classical experience any day. People don't always have time and strength to go full immersion on the game.


Also this:
Only interesting application is for first person game else it's gimmick stufff not worth 800$.
Require too much effort when I want to play video I want to sit ass and play fast and easy./QUOTE]
 
The question I'm asking here is: why does everyone think that VR and "classical" gaming don't go together? What prevents me from making games controlled by gamepads or mouse and keyboard and still get the "in the room" feel of the VR headset? Of course game makers will try to explore the possibility space of VR right now; but that doesn't mean that it can't successfully blend into "classic" gameplay.


I just don't understand why people are so sceptic about this. Isn't it great that we actually have the technology now? Shouldn't we - as gamers - embrace it as an opportunity to get more immersive experiences?

Of all the shit the gaming industry has brought us in the last decade, I'd say that this is one of the better things.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 45
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
9,529
I'm excited and not very skeptical, but it's a matter of practicality & price for me; I don't have the room or even a tenth of the funds to devote to it. It's gonna have to get pretty cheap/ubiquitous before I really get excited about (using) it.
 
I'm excited and not very skeptical, but it's a matter of practicality & price for me; I don't have the room or even a tenth of the funds to devote to it. It's gonna have to get pretty cheap/ubiquitous before I really get excited about (using) it.
That's always true for early adopters. Be it electric cars, kickstarter projects or VR. Being an early adopter is expensive.

And to be perfect honest here: 800$ isn't even that much more than a modern generation gaming console. And the number of games available for them is roughly the same. I wish I was kidding about that.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 45
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
9,529
That's always true for early adopters. Be it electric cars, kickstarter projects or VR. Being an early adopter is expensive.
Which is why I'm not. Took me, like, 20 years to see The Fiddler on the Roof, for crying out loud. : )

Zwiebelchen said:
And to be perfect honest here: 800$ isn't even that much more than a modern generation gaming console. And the number of games available for them is roughly the same. I wish I was kidding about that.
Yeaaaahh... I saved up for, like, a number of years to buy/build a *cheap* PC at around $300-$400. Never paid more than... $20? for a game. Just got Skyrim, like, a few months ago (how many years old is that?).

$800 is so far outside the realm of reality for me. Rent-and-a-half? Naw man.
 
Level 19
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
2,162
it's going to fail

gamers are not interested in games that require them to exercise and be good at it

why do I say this?

Wii- fail
Xbox G- fail
3-D gaming fail

they just aren't popular enough, even though I love my Wii
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top