The future of Virtual Reality movies and TV

a reply to: Talltexxxan

That counts as excercise right?

a reply to: Talltexxxan

I believe the upcoming first person movie 'Hardcore Henry' is possibly a test bed for future VR movies

Cant wait to try it. I can see this having a significant impact on cultures , good or bad?.

However watching the Hardcore Henry trailer itself made me car sick. Hopefully using the OR technology will allow the user more control of how the POV is displayed versus the director which I hope will become the intention.

originally posted by: JohnSmith77
a reply to: Talltexxxan

I'm always amazed by the fact that shooting people to death in games is somehow morally accepted.
I know it's just a game and those are just pixels, but it is the idea behind it.

This is what our kids do these days.

I agree that the idea behind it is wrong but the truth is that we willing allow our youth to go around shooting and killing people in real life wars. I've been playing shootem up games since the days of Nintendo but you don't see me out there reenacting the same level of violence in the real world. Video games are just that....games. And no, my children don't play games like that. They're new favorite game is Madden25. And I don't think they will become NFL superstars because they play it. And BTW that scene you showed from the game was removed in several countries and was optional in the US.

originally posted by: BigScaryStrawman
a reply to: Talltexxxan

That counts as excercise right?

Absolutely

Gone will be the days of the overweight gamer. Soon if you cant physically run across the map ...ohwell guess you gonna be a dead solider. haha

originally posted by: JohnSmith77
a reply to: Talltexxxan

I'm always amazed by the fact that shooting people to death in games is somehow morally accepted.
I know it's just a game and those are just pixels, but it is the idea behind it.

This is what our kids do these days.

Studies show that bad moral behavior in gaming makes you a good person irl
Sciencedaily findings

in the 90s, some guy named Jack Thompson lead a "Crusade" against games and gaming, saying violent games were turning kids and adults alike into raging psychos. What happened was a war erupted..many jumped in the bandwagon (same hype when "they" decided rock music made you become a devil worshipper)...studies were done, redone, tons of studies, all concluding that violent video game behavior did not make you violent as a person, nor trigger any violent qualities in you that weren't already there.
The only time aggression, bad behavior, or anything else plays a role is within a minute or two timeframe after you shut a video down (if it was an exceptionally aggressive game experience, you may be a bit more tense for a minute after you shut it off).

Lately there has been a resurgance of this exact complaint..that video games are too violent, yet the only cooralation between video games and violence is actually a perfect decrease in crime, violence, and aggressive attitudes seeming in perfect sync with greater video game consumption. cooralation does not mean causation, but with the actual proper studies being done mixed with datapoints, it does seem there could be a influence on a person..aka, if you have a outlet of aggression, it seems to calm you as a person.

I would then post an example
Go to some geeky con..dragoncon, PAX, etc..note the people there, note the calm attitudes, the sort of socially awkward yet completely friendly mindsets. These are gamers, these are the ones t-bagging you while calling your mom names in a counterestrike game..

Now, go then to a place where there aren't a lot of (admitted) nerdy types..a sporting event..a bar. These people with no outlet will come across as a very different energy. confrontational, often fighting erupting, agressive stances, etc.

final conclusion
shoot the pedestrians in VR...because it will make you care more in RL it appears.

originally posted by: Talltexxxan
Video games are just that....games.

Not to be confused with toys though.

violent games have their place. they are cathartic, can allow for expression of antisocial aggression a person has pent up (better shoot pixel people than kick a dog), etc

I would say if your kids are teens, you should definitely let em get their shooting on...we all know how frustrating being a teen can be. the body is in full rebellion, you think you're an adult being treated like a kid, etc..

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Talltexxxan
Video games are just that....games.

Not to be confused with toys though.

violent games have their place. they are cathartic, can allow for expression of antisocial aggression a person has pent up (better shoot pixel people than kick a dog), etc

I would say if your kids are teens, you should definitely let em get their shooting on...we all know how frustrating being a teen can be. the body is in full rebellion, you think you're an adult being treated like a kid, etc..

Not teens yet. Both are a mere 10yo. So no shotem ups just yet. They both still enjoy their kiddy video games. I for one will have no problem with them getting into shootems when their older but their mother might have different ideas. haha

originally posted by: Talltexxxan
their mother might have different ideas. haha

If she complains, just say "well, anything to tear them away from the endless VR porn they are consuming is a welcomed change.


that should get her on board

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Talltexxxan
their mother might have different ideas. haha

If she complains, just say "well, anything to tear them away from the endless VR porn they are consuming is a welcomed change.


that should get her on board

HAHAHA!!! My wife is already upset that I have the Rift coming. When I asked her why, she said cuz I'm going to lose my husband for hours at a time due to VR racing and porn.
atleast she knows me well.

It's the same basic premise. Put screens in front of your eyes with gyroscopic tracking. Higher quality digital content and higher quality screens don't count as "a huge leap forward". We've had OLED technology commercially available for almost 15 years, I had an OLED "smart watch" that played MPEG movies in 2006, came from Japan.

I think it's sad and a bit hillarious that "kids these days" are are fawning over this technology when it isn't' anything new, revolutionary or amazing.

It's ... refined.

That's about all I'll give it. It looks sexier, it has higher resolution and better head tracking. Is it very portable? No. Is it wireless? No. Those concerns should have, and could have been addressed already. The VR headsets now should look like Geordi's visor from ST:TNG given how far miniaturization has come. I don't lug around a cell phone that looks like cell phones in 1995.

I also find it curious that Apple hasn't indicated its interest in VR. That speaks volumes to me. It tells me Apple is waiting for everyone else to spend the money advertising, informing and growing a demand before coming out with something of their own. Apple is good at letting other people spend money breaking ground before announcing their own product. Was there an MP3 player before the iPod? Sure, but the iPod was so much easier to use with large libraries of music.

a reply to: Talltexxxan

Cool gizmos but a gimmick in the end sadly, what we need is actual holography then we can have some fun!

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Talltexxxan

Cool gizmos but a gimmick in the end sadly, what we need is actual holography then we can have some fun!

As I agree that actual holography is insanely cool (augmented reality), you obviously havnt used one of the available VR headsets yet if you think its a gimmick. That's okay. you'll see

a reply to: Talltexxxan

Played with oculus and hololens and samsungs gear VR thingy, hololens was coolest but they all have one thing in common, they are not practical.

The next step is: "Immersion virtual reality" in the nervous system.
Such a profoundly amazing, scary future...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think it's sad and a bit hillarious that "kids these days" are are fawning over this technology when it isn't' anything new, revolutionary or amazing.

this is a silly counterpoint.
the technology has been around for awhile, therefore even though it is superior by leaps in every way, it isn't really groundbreaking or really interesting because the tech itself isn't that new.
ok..
but then I would ask, do you own a television, or have you dismissed it considering the tech behind a tv since 1877, just refined and improved? your super digital tv is nothing more than still frames being shown in succession the way its always been..just better quality..still..we are talking 140 year old tech..
see...bad counterpoint..refinement makes tech.

Is it very portable? No. Is it wireless? No.

the Gear VR is both of those things..same with the hololens

Those concerns should have, and could have been addressed already.

they were, and at the moment, you can have a great film watching and small game playing experience with the mobile vr systems.
actually, those systems may be the staplemark living room "family movies" viewer...then having the powerhouse systems in the backroom for proper gaming experiences

I also find it curious that Apple hasn't indicated its interest in VR.

I wouldn't overthink it. Apple computers are overpriced and underpowered. Oculus or Vive wont support mac computers because of how crappy their specs are even for a 3k computer

It tells me Apple is waiting for everyone else to spend the money advertising, informing and growing a demand before coming out with something of their own. Apple is good at letting other people spend money breaking ground before announcing their own product. Was there an MP3 player before the iPod? Sure, but the iPod was so much easier to use with large libraries of music.

Opposite typically. Apple is the innovator, then others come along and steal their designs, make better products for cheaper and destroy apple. This is because apple can make really wild new things, but again, their tech is inferior, so when microsoft and others step in after apple breaks ground, they quickly overcome them..forcing apple to keep innovating.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Talltexxxan

Played with oculus and hololens and samsungs gear VR thingy, hololens was coolest but they all have one thing in common, they are not practical.

I'm not calling you a liar....I'm truly not. I just find it hard to believe that anyone who has tried one of these can call it a gimmick. Now as far as practical. Is a desktop computer practical to lug around?... no. Is a PS4 or Xbox1 practical to carry around?....no. That is not their intention. The intention is to transport you 'virtually' into a game or experience. And in my eyes it hits the nail on the head.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Talltexxxan

Played with oculus and hololens and samsungs gear VR thingy, hololens was coolest but they all have one thing in common, they are not practical.

Practical for what?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The VR headsets now should look like Geordi's visor from ST:TNG given how far miniaturization has come.

One more thing about this
Sure, yeah, I would totally love 100% immersive awesome VR that looks like little more than a band flashing lights into your eyes and connected up into your brain, but it is what it is.

its 2016, and if this was the 1970s, you would think by now our tech levels would be outside of sci-fi comprehension with everyone having personal teleporters, pocket universes, eternal youth, etc etc etc. but reality is reality and desires of where we should be give way to the reality of where we are.

If you want a geordi style headset in about 15 years, then you buy the oculus today..with purchasing comes interest, with interest comes streamlining, and with streamlining comes breakthroughs.
The reason not a ton of advancments has been done since the 90s is because there was not enough interest, and the cost was outlandish, for geeks, for games only, and very poor quality..who would pay top $ for that to even start the ball rolling.
Welp, its refined enough to be worthwhile..support it!
YOU BUY NAOW!
...or just get one of those google cardboard things to see if even a slight taste is of interest to you with your phone.

originally posted by: graysquirrel
The problem is that it has to be worn. History has shown that if it's wearable, it will never grow above a small niche market.

I once went into London and saw the Virtuality reality booths in Covent Garden tube station. They were really cool at the time, but the weight of the headsets was just too much, and the latency from four Amiga desktop PC's (two pipelines of two computers, one pair for each eye screen) was just too slow. The game itself was interesting - "Try and avoid being killed by flying dragons on a multi-level checkerboard platform". It would probably be way more enjoyable now. But they were ahead of their time.

The 3D vision PC screens are more usable, especially with the lightweight shutter glasses, but you really need a large screen (>= 24") to really appreciate the effects. I have one of these and downloaded just about every 3D video I could find (skydiving, timelapse of insects, flowers, nature. Skydiving and timelapse is the best that I have seen.