PitchforksAhoy

cy_starkman said:

PitchforksAhoy said:

cy_starkman said:

gatorguy said:

AppleInsider said:

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.

AppleExposed said:

IF TRUE:
Apple becoming the Nintendo Nintendo couldn't be. Valve wanted to work with Nintendo in the past but Nintendo was too busy being cocky.

PitchforksAhoy said:

cy_starkman said:

gatorguy said:

AppleInsider said:

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.

A bunch of opinions. At least the OP had a fact thrown in there.

This isn't an opinion post. VR is measurably more immersive. It's simple, because VR headsets have a wider field of view. Additionally, many game design constraints are known in VR and AR, and AR falls short considerably compared to VR. You flat out can't do vehicles or any kind of abnormal movement if it's a 1st person perspective unless you use real vehicles and such which people won't be doing on a daily or even weekly basis.

cy_starkman said:

gatorguy said:

AppleInsider said:

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.