DCK Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 How are you so sure? Dont state your opinion as a fact, because you may have been proven wrong. Nintendo are still very much interested in the visor, they have said this is many interviews, but lately, a company which is currently tested visors (Sorry, cannot remember the name) has reported Nintendo have purchased a few of their current units. I cant remember were i found this information, it may of been in a different topic on this forum. I would of agree'd with you if you said there will be no visor this generation, because it is impossible. A low priced console, with an expensive visor? Yeah right, but within 10 years? I reckon it could happen. Every price sharply falls within 2 years, so visors could become cheap by the time Nintendo release whatever is next. I never state my opinion as a fact. Counting up other facts leads to a conclusion though. The technology is too expensive and it's a way too radical and too hardcore change. A cheap console aiming for a big audience would not be suitable at all for that. Why I think there will probably (and I say probably) be one is because VR isn't stimulated to drop in price. Things like processors and memory and such are constantly stimulated to drop in price because everybody wants them, meaning there's companies competing over prices. Who wants VR goggles? Not many. Who makes them? Not many either. It's a logical result because not many people want them. I can't see the situation we're in change anytime soon. Other than that (and now I'm telling opinions, that's right) I simply don't think VR is the future. I want to get on the couch, grab a controller and play the game. I don't want a game to require goggles so that you absolutely don't know what's going on elsewhere. I want to be immersed, but I don't want to go off the real world when playing games. I play games to relax, and I'd like it to stay that way, and so do loads and loads of other people.
Pit-Jr Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 im hoping the big secret is something a little more basic, like say, a free game or the ability to transfer NES games to the DS. The system is worthy as it is without some VR gimmick
dabookerman Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 im hoping the big secret is something a little more basic, like say, a free game or the ability to transfer NES games to the DS. The system is worthy as it is without some VR gimmick why does everyone want nes games all of a sudden, and people complain about ports, yet people want nes games snes/n64 games on the ds > nes games that have been rereleased a million times
seamus_aran Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Virtual reality is the next step. Hell stop living in the past. Soon you'll be like on of those old people who don't know how to use the internet. HA. I really wish this had come round this generation, but it just isn't feasable. For you not to look like a tool you'd have to have sensors around your head to sense little movements so you could do stuff without having to swing your arm around like a bat.
Destiny Blade Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 personally i think having one of those visors would be insainly cool but yes multiplayer would be a tad difficult but would be great for pc
demonmike04 Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Other than that (and now I'm telling opinions, that's right) I simply don't think VR is the future. I want to get on the couch, grab a controller and play the game. I don't want a game to require goggles so that you absolutely don't know what's going on elsewhere. I want to be immersed, but I don't want to go off the real world when playing games. I play games to relax, and I'd like it to stay that way, and so do loads and loads of other people. Yeah I agree with you there, TV's are still being experimented and have been proven close vision with it can cause long term effects on your eyes, making VR not a very healthy idea. I personally dont want VR, but alot of signs are pointing towards it, as you can see from the many posts. Nintendo have even claimed to have an interest in VR again. Im pretty much immersed in alot of games i play, i can even get caught up playing the original doom and have my heart skip a beat when a roar comes out of no where. If there is VR in the future, i hope its either effective, or additional.
Hellfire Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 BTW eMagin already said they sold visors to other companies like SDK. http://www.revolutionreport.com/articles/read/253
Sooj Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Technology to make a flat display 3D like this has been around since the 1980's, and if you have an Nvidia video card you can set up your home computer in 3d for free. Ironically that is exactly what I was doing two days ago while researching this type of technology (not related to CES though, I just happened to see one for sale on Ebay and thought i'd look into the technology behind it to see if it would really work as promised). It seems a good time to give an account of what I learned then, but before I start let me say that you won't be seeing this on the Revolution considering the headset starts at $900 for the cheaper of two versions. So anyway, what I learned was that there are four ways to make 3D happen, 3 of which use your existing monitor and video card setup. The first technology is an actual 3d LCD. The advantage of this technology is you don't have to wear glasses to see it, the disadvantages are it has an extremely limited viewing angle and costs a lot. The second technology is that employeed by the above mentioned glasses, basically it just puts two seperate LCD or OLCD screens right in front of your eyes and displays slightly different images on both of them to simulate 3d. This is probably the best way to do it, the disadvantage is it is extremely expensive also. The third and probably best compromise between cost and effectiveness is the system employeed by [http://http://www.edimensional.com/]E-Dimensional[/url]. These are the ones I was considering getting. What it does is has two 'shutters' over each eye which open and close extremely fast (so you won't notice), and your monitor displays two slightly different images extremely fast. When your monitor shows the left eye picture, the glasses block out your right eye, when the monitor shows your right eye picture, the goggles block out your left eye. This all happens so fast that you won't notice it. The advantages of this technology is it is very cheap ($70), the disadvantage is it darkers the display slightly and might cause ghosting on some super-fast games. The final and cheapest (read: free) solution is to use the traditional red/blue glasses. If you have an Nvidia graphics card you can download free drivers from Nvidia that will automatically add the necessary redshift to all your existing 3d games (that run using OpenGL or DX). It works with the vast majority of 3d games and its 100% free, all you need to do is aquire some blue and red glasses - of which I just happened to have a pair lying around but you can get them for free - a couple of dollars online or you can make your own. The advantage to this technology is of course its price and how easy it is to setup, the disadvantage is you loose depth of color since everything in rendered in a slightly red hued environment and your looking through blue and red glasses. Since I am extremely cheap I decided to go with this last option. It took quite a bit of getting used to (and I'm not using it anymore, I am the type of person who will sacrafice anything graphical for a few more frames per second in my first person shooters) but it really did look 3D. I found that the 3d part of it worked extremely well on Day of Defeat: Source, unfortunately the drivers are a bit outdated and crashed DoD:S whenever I tried to adjust the redshift settings >< The HUD (incl. crosshair) in DoD:S were also broken (HUD's should not be redshifted at all since they are at 'screen level', the HUD in DoD:S was shifted massively ><). I also tried the game in UT04 where it looked quite good, plus the cross hair and HUD worked fine since the drivers were adjusted to support the UT series. (You might run into the HUD problem with any of the mentioned systems above if they don't have built in support for that specific game) Another game which looked really sweet was AoE3 (AoE2 did not render in 3d), especially the cut scenes in the campaign. But I trashed the entire 3D idea after two days because of its adverse affects on my FPS skills, it is pretty awsome though to see it in 3D, but the effect wears off quickly if your actually trying to play.
Pit-Jr Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 why does everyone want nes games all of a sudden, and people complain about ports, yet people want nes games snes/n64 games on the ds > nes games that have been rereleased a million times I agree but this is Nintendo were talking about, who are more prone to release N64 ports at full price on the DS. When i said NES i was just being realistic, but yeah ideally it would be cool to be able to transfer anything you buy on the Rev onto the DS.
DCK Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Virtual reality is the next step. Hell stop living in the past. Soon you'll be like on of those old people who don't know how to use the internet. HA. I really wish this had come round this generation, but it just isn't feasable. For you not to look like a tool you'd have to have sensors around your head to sense little movements so you could do stuff without having to swing your arm around like a bat. The idea of VR as the future of gaming is really old fashioned now. Back in the NES era it was already considered as the future of gaming - but since then the technology's advance compared to other gaming hardware has been insignificant. Nintendo tried something somewhat similar with the Virtual Boy and it failed miserabely, already back in the early nineties. Most people feel to uncomfortable with leaving the TV for a pair of goggles, and it's understandable. You're going to be cut off the world. You're going to look silly. Nobody wants that. I think 3D TVs are more likely to happen, but it'll still take some time before it goes mainstream.
Recommended Posts