@Falzonn It depends on pixel density. Resolution is a component of that, but pixel orientation and structure will also factor in very heavily. The screen door effect is actually minimal enough in the second dev kit that many people use the DK2 exclusively to play certain games. Sim racers can actually use it competitively now, whereas, with the DK1, the resolution was too low.
The consumer version is rumored to be 1440p or greater. It's confirmed that it will be greater than 1080p. The screen door effect will very likely be no issue at all in the consumer version. Not saying there won't be some slightly visibility of a "screen door," but it's not going to take away from gaming or VR experiences. Even the DK2 right now is playable, comfortable, and compelling with games compared to the Dk1.
If the resolution bugs you, don't buy a developer's kit. Wait for the consumer release which will likely be some time in the next 15 months.
@Maj_Wood It weighs practically nothing, and the consumer version is said to be even lighter. Yes, I wanna wear something like this- many people already wear big, clunky headphones for gaming. Why would anyone wanna drive a race car if they have to wear a helmet and a silly onesie? Why would anyone want to ride a bike if they have to wear spandex/lycra and a helmet?
As for Kinect on computers... despite being practically worthless for all but a few rare exceptions on console, well:
@Dannystaples14 There are still tons a great games being made. Probably more than ever before. Try looking past the AAA game markets.
--- "VR might be a good thing but it won't replace conventional screens all together. What it makes better with one hand it makes worse with the other."
Of course it's not going to replace traditional displays altogether. What it's going to do is vastly, immensely, completely change the way we perceive many games, and many types of games.
--- "Simulators will be great with VR headsets, FPSs and RTS games will not be and they may even be made worse using a headset."
Not true at all. There are tons of different ways that VR can be implemented for these types of things. Simulators, like flight, space, and racing, are certainly going to be able to apply VR well, for the most part, but even games like Mario 64, Resogun, or even an RTS or dungeon crawler can deliver compelling experiences in VR:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcULkRxXxAs
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6QB87mFbng - obviously not very refined, but just a proof of concept
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3EvrYXJ67o - imagine being inside the cylindrical layout of resogun, and being able to scale the world up so the ships look big and distant
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YdxZlJnY-o - even third-person, over the shoulder games can be totally immersive and compelling in VR
--- "Not to mention the total lack of local group play possible using one it is pointless for many people."
Like the anyway dwindling amount of local multiplayer and splitscreen, online gaming is much more prevalent than local play. Yes, it might be "pointless" to the TINY handful of people who play EXCLUSIVELY local multiplayer, but many who play local multiplayer also play single-player and online, so the device isn't really pointless, is it? Furthermore, a vast majority of gamers don't play much local multiplayer at all, so the argument that the device will be "pointless to many," seems largely irrelevant.
--- "How can something change gaming if a large group of people won't even benefit from it? They will be niche products."
The device changes almost every facet of gaming, and possibly even digital entertainment as a whole, and like I mentioned in the previous comment, that "large group of people" actually isn't very large. I mean, even if a comparatively large group of people did still play A LOT of local multiplayer, how many of them play exclusively only local multiplayer?
@somberfox @GSGuy321 That's like saying having a bucket for a seat in your car, as opposed to a proper seat, makes hardly a difference in your commute. Sure, you might get there and back all the same, but that bucket is extremely uncomfortable. That's the difference frame rate makes. It's not massively exaggerated, it's comfortable.
I wouldn't take an activity that I do for hours upon hours a week, and find a way to make it uncomfortable. I wouldn't buy uncomfortable shoes as they're something I wear and use for hours every day. I wouldn't buy a chair that wobbles and without a cushion, as opposed to a sturdy one that is comfortable.
While I will agree that 30fps is, in more than 99% of cases, scraping the bare minimum, and that's in terms of playability, I will concede that this article is friggin' click-bait. If Luckey was speaking in the context of VR, that 30fps is total failure, then yeah absolutely. But, if he was speaking in general, well then yeah, he's still kind of right, it's just to a lesser degree of failure.
@BadMrSnake The Kinect? How? It doesn't do anything to adjust the immersion breaking nature of traditional, two-dimensional displays. It's merely an input device; it's largely incapable of altering how we see, perceive, and feel things.
Additionally, "games & programs on the Rift" don't look terrible at all. That's just a generalization. You see the many, many HOME-BREW applications and assume that's everything there is for the Rift. No. In fact, there's so much of that because it was the fans, early adopters, and those who were skeptics and convinced early on with an open mind that started creating all of these games and applications for the Rift.
If you'd looked at any more refined games from developers with more experience, and actual teams of people instead of the single guy designing stuff with default engine assets, you'd notice that plenty of games and applications being worked on are, in fact, beautiful both technically and aesthetically.
merrickx's comments