A report claims that Apple is working with game distributor Valve
Valve wouldn't be providing the VR experiences itself, but could use the Steam distribution system to distribute them. .
Rather than AR as the focus Apple will be targeting VR uses like gaming, just the opposite of what has been reported in the past couple of years?? I remember Mr Cook not all that long ago arguing that augmented reality is preferable to virtual reality. Partnering with a gaming company on the development seems at odds with that.
Quite the opposite actually. AR in many respects is even better for gaming. With even more immersive potential, less issues with disconnected movement sickness and more.
from multiplayer, to board games, to interactive stories, alt reality tie ins (such as marvel or star wars), next level or virtualised existing sports, first person shooting - AR is going to be better, healthier, more engaging and self promoting.
not so much for vehicle simulators
I made an account just to correct the misconception here. AR is far worse for gaming because gamers want hand-crafted game worlds. They do not want the real world, and they certainly don't want only procedural content that AR will have to offer because you can't exactly build Tamriel in the real world and instead have to make bits and pieces that conform to your local surroundings, which will mostly be someone's house and therefore way too small and limited. AR will be great for tabletop games and card games and enhancing existing activities, but that's about it.
It's also extremely unimmersive today because the field of view is so narrow. VR will always be lightyears ahead in immersion, that's for sure. Overall, AR is just too limited for gaming.
Not to mention that every example you mention is better in VR aside from maybe board games. Interactive stories in your own house will get old fast. FPS games will be mostly just about target practice and so on.
I'm sure you have some kind of personal investment in AR which is making you say these things, but they're simply not true.
i am sorry that you are stuck in an old mind set, or at least one based on consumption of what is old and that what was is what will be.
VR beats AR in only one category, which i noted, vehicle assisted movement. this is a large category to be sure.
I've developed both VR games and AR games. I own a Magic Leap One, HoloLens 1 (tried 2), Oculus Rift, Valve Index, and PSVR. I have a lot of experience with what works and doesn't work in both VR and AR. Give me a design challenge and I can give you a response on how I'd resolve it.
VR beats AR in most categories for gaming. I'll fully admit AR has VR beat in general purpose applications, but for gaming? Not at all.
How is an AR horror game going to beat Resident Evil 7 or Alien Isolation? Animatronics in your closet with FNAF AR is going to get old very fast because the whole experience needs to be procedural. There's very little exploration, and you'll consistently notice the patterns after a few games, whereas exploring the ship in Alien Isolation VR is consistently fresh for 10 hours.
How about RPGs, action games, adventure games, MMOs and so on? All of these rely 100% on game worlds and the moment that world ceases to exist is the moment most of the appeal is gone. Bloodborne is not Bloodborne without Yharnam. Elder Scrolls is not Elder Scrolls without Tamriel. World of Warcraft is not World of Warcraft without Azeroth. How about stories, as you mention? Well that's going to get old seeing characters in your house over and over again, and yes I know you can alter the world, but AR still needs the mapping of the real world for characters to interact with you. In basically every game ever made, the story is reliant on the game world for most of it's storytelling.
With AR you can go out to an open field and have larger scale experiences, but outside of a few genres, developers won't be building games that way because it's too much to ask of the player. "Purchase this game and find an open field to play. Please do not play in town"
AR will work very well for location based experiences, a few niche genres, and tabletop/card gaming. That's it. Basically everyone will prefer VR for all other forms of gaming.
A report claims that Apple is working with game distributor Valve
Valve wouldn't be providing the VR experiences itself, but could use the Steam distribution system to distribute them. .
Rather than AR as the focus Apple will be targeting VR uses like gaming, just the opposite of what has been reported in the past couple of years?? I remember Mr Cook not all that long ago arguing that augmented reality is preferable to virtual reality. Partnering with a gaming company on the development seems at odds with that.
Quite the opposite actually. AR in many respects is even better for gaming. With even more immersive potential, less issues with disconnected movement sickness and more.
from multiplayer, to board games, to interactive stories, alt reality tie ins (such as marvel or star wars), next level or virtualised existing sports, first person shooting - AR is going to be better, healthier, more engaging and self promoting.
not so much for vehicle simulators
I made an account just to correct the misconception here. AR is far worse for gaming because gamers want hand-crafted game worlds. They do not want the real world, and they certainly don't want only procedural content that AR will have to offer because you can't exactly build Tamriel in the real world and instead have to make bits and pieces that conform to your local surroundings, which will mostly be someone's house and therefore way too small and limited. AR will be great for tabletop games and card games and enhancing existing activities, but that's about it.
It's also extremely unimmersive today because the field of view is so narrow. VR will always be lightyears ahead in immersion, that's for sure. Overall, AR is just too limited for gaming.
Not to mention that every example you mention is better in VR aside from maybe board games. Interactive stories in your own house will get old fast. FPS games will be mostly just about target practice and so on.
I'm sure you have some kind of personal investment in AR which is making you say these things, but they're simply not true.
outside that, VR has much greater issues to deal with over AR. Which needs to improve FOV, but then so does VR. VR has to solve stuff as basic as walking.
you provide a very narrow scenario, which amounts to a small room or a couch (old thinking) and with that VR is going to need to take over the nervous system “full dive” to solve its issues; or require in the early days those large treadmills, until the game wants you to climb and then what?
immersion is constantly being broken in VR. Yet you make out as if VR puts you in the experience, which is only true with vehicles. Basically, when you are sitting on your ass.
i would bank on AR solving FOV before VR solves movement.
I am not personally invested except to say I have done 25yrs research into both as an entertainment/teaching/communications platform - and both have their pluses and negatives.
in the case of gaming, trust me, i would love to be roaming around FFXV or HzD in VR; but given both examples break in seconds of gameplay, immersion in VR gaming (non vehicle) is whole fields of science away from us yet.
Until then AR wins, because it will provide a more diverse range of entertainment with immersion that is harder to break; and easier shared experiences within place based story telling.
real time object recognition, real time image mapping, real time image processing, merged occlusion/shadows/reflections, physics, depth mapping, live hand, gesture and facial expression detection are all possible now and being put literally into our hands.
AR will use all that in the next 1-3 years to create immersive experiences in that time scale.
please tell me where are we up to with paralysing the human body and replacing the motor and sensory systems input and output from the brain; so i can do anything more than walk on a flat surface for a few metres? sure that surface could appear as anywhere we can imagine and that looks great, can give you vertigo - but beyond those few flat metres it all dies on the ass
unless of course in a vehicle sim which is amazing, really amazing.
don’t you want to get off your couch?
--Covering the next part.--
VR can cover every existing game genre either seated or standing, so there is no limitation there. No need for an neural interface. You don't seem to understand how VR game design works, because many climbing systems have been built in VR games and they are better than any climbing systems provided in non-VR games because they are more freeing. You can climb, swim, do parkour, float in zero gravity, and so on.
No one thinks that immersion is constantly broken in VR. If you think that, then you are maybe a tiny minority. With VR, people find it's the most immersive thing they've ever experienced, and that's the general consensus. Most VR users don't even play racing games, so the majority of VR users find genres other than racing immersive.
That 25 years of research you have done is 25 years of wasted work because so much of it just plain false. I've actually only been onboard with both for about 5 years and have probably a lifetime more experience. Do you think you can find many gamers who would agree with you? Tough shot, because almost every gamer wants VR over AR if they have to choose.
You say AR provides a more range of diverse entertainment and that's flat out false. That's literally impossible, because VR can simulate entire worlds which means it's always mathematically going to offer more possibilities of experience. VR can emulate every perspective that AR enables, but it doesn't work the other way around.
I suggest you stop using the 90s VR headset experience you have as some kind of indication of what VR is like today and actually try modern VR games like Lone Echo, Asgard's Wrath, Astro Bot, Beat Saber, and Pavlov. Modern VR is scientifically proven to be able to induce presence which means your brain fully buys into it.
Ludicrous. In what world does Apple collaborate with hardware competitors to develop their products and/or offload software distribution? If they wanted Valve’s talent, they could buy the company 20x over with their cash hoard.
Ludicrous. In what world does Apple collaborate with hardware competitors to develop their products and/or offload software distribution? If they wanted Valve’s talent, they could buy the company 20x over with their cash hoard.
Where are you seeing hardware competition? Valve primarily does VR. Their rumored collaboration with Apple is supposedly an AR device. Almost everyone in the thread is commenting as if they're doing VR together. That's not what Digitimes is claiming. AI just presented the info in a way that seems to have confused a lot of the forum members
Comments
VR beats AR in most categories for gaming. I'll fully admit AR has VR beat in general purpose applications, but for gaming? Not at all.
How is an AR horror game going to beat Resident Evil 7 or Alien Isolation? Animatronics in your closet with FNAF AR is going to get old very fast because the whole experience needs to be procedural. There's very little exploration, and you'll consistently notice the patterns after a few games, whereas exploring the ship in Alien Isolation VR is consistently fresh for 10 hours.
How about RPGs, action games, adventure games, MMOs and so on? All of these rely 100% on game worlds and the moment that world ceases to exist is the moment most of the appeal is gone. Bloodborne is not Bloodborne without Yharnam. Elder Scrolls is not Elder Scrolls without Tamriel. World of Warcraft is not World of Warcraft without Azeroth. How about stories, as you mention? Well that's going to get old seeing characters in your house over and over again, and yes I know you can alter the world, but AR still needs the mapping of the real world for characters to interact with you. In basically every game ever made, the story is reliant on the game world for most of it's storytelling.
With AR you can go out to an open field and have larger scale experiences, but outside of a few genres, developers won't be building games that way because it's too much to ask of the player. "Purchase this game and find an open field to play. Please do not play in town"
AR will work very well for location based experiences, a few niche genres, and tabletop/card gaming. That's it. Basically everyone will prefer VR for all other forms of gaming.