Presumably where 'cost' includes future reinvestment, exec bonuses, and a private jet .
Well Mark Zucheberg did send me a Unicorn when I showed interest in VR.
Presumably where 'cost' includes future reinvestment, exec bonuses, and a private jet .
People that want incredible, next-gen experiences.
You haven't ever tried it have you? Not trying to be insulting, but your 'doubt' about this stuff is what people who haven't tried it usually say.
People that want incredible, next-gen experiences.
You haven't ever tried it have you? Not trying to be insulting, but your 'doubt' about this stuff is what people who haven't tried it usually say.
There was 3D gaming and there is 3D movies.
3D Gaming didnt take off. 3D Movies in cinemas are still here.
You won't have VR in cinemas like we know it now for a long long time.
That leaves VR on a more personal level. The numbers are not there.
Listen, the tech might be worthwhile for some applications, I'll say that.
But I'm talking about human nature here. I'm talking weighing up the utility of VR against the hassle of donning a face-covering headset.
Do you /really/ think people are going to put their headset on to look at Google Streetview? Honestly?
Now, you might do that, but do you think people who aren't tech enthusiasts will ever embrace that? Maybe once for novelty value. Sure, I can see that.
But how many people will consider it worthwhile to put their VR headset on every time they want to use Streetview?
I think some of you in this thread believe we're going to be living in a VR world before long, where everything is done in VR, even MS Word
You sound like a caveman, questioning why anyone would want to sit in a room on a chair in front of a computer for hours on end.....
Technology moves on. The majority (5-40 year olds) will fully embrace this with open arms. The majority of those 40+ will be stubborn, and not want to adapt to the times, and keep their 2D monitors next to their mug of ovaltine etc.
Luddite's have always been the same
I'm just happy that people are taking a risk to push this tech forward.
+1 too many negative Nancys shouting "I don't like change, and neither should you!".
Then the other crowd moaning that its not an 8k screen for each eye in a set of normal looking glasses with full body tracking that also cooks your tea and handily pleasures you at the same time!
I'm just happy that people are taking a risk to push this tech forward.
I'm on site but have put it in my google calendar with alerts from 1 hr to 5 mins beforeI have settled on 4pm tomorrow I will be pre-ordering the CV1. If the Vive is any good, I will also give that a look later on. Love the tech and more of it please. I just need a decent GPU to power it now
I have settled on 4pm tomorrow I will be pre-ordering the CV1. If the Vive is any good, I will also give that a look later on. Love the tech and more of it please. I just need a decent GPU to power it now
Stereoscopic vision is, was, and always has been (for me, on paper beforehand and after it's realisation) absolute and utter crap.They said that when Nvidia launched 3Dvision too.....
Stereoscopic vision is, was, and always has been (for me, on paper beforehand and after it's realisation) absolute and utter crap.
If people are too myopic (edit: pun not intended) to see how VR is a game changer and in no way comparable to all other 3D effects to date, then that's your problem. See you in a year or so when the world is gushing about it and you feel left out.
They said that in 1993. And I wouldn't feel left out because if it were any good I would have it.
In 1993 none of the technology was about that would have made it work properly. It was a idea way ahead of its time, much like smart phones/tablets and video phones were in 1978 with the film 2001. Sometimes you need everything else to fall into place before an idea can really manifest into something tangible.