Perfectly calm thanks. You, on the other hand, seem quite excitable. And the vast majority of what you have written is complete conjecture. How much VR experience do you have?
You didn't look calm, really. You took it rather personal and even gave an arrogant response, with a "
" in the end, which can be taken as offensive, cynical and/or provocative.
And no, I never experienced VR yet, that's why I placed my doubts here. Instead, you run straight to the last post, read it, and made assumptions. Didn't answer to it or any of my other posts with any kind sensible response to change my opinion or clarify my doubts.
In an era where processing power is becoming cheaper and cheaper, screens are getting bigger and bigger and there are more and more finer detail in games, down to blades of grass and cracks in the tarmac, a quadrupling of resolution is anything but a gimmick. VR also isn't a gimmick if it enhances the gaming experience, much like a wheel isn't required for a racing sim, but it sure does enhance the experience. To me a gimmick is something that draws your attention and the hype surrounding it builds it up to be something it's not, and, ultimately, it's not worth the price you paid and is unsatisfying in the long term. I don't think 4K fits that definition, and if you're someone that can tolerate the VR headset and enjoys playing with it, I don't think it fits the definition of gimmicky either.
I still think 4k is a gimmick due to it being something that, at this point, costs a lot for what it offers. I'm speaking as of now, in a time where it is something expensive with little advantages. Yes it gives more immersion, but everything that uses 4k, is expensive. 4k Blu-ray are hugely expensive for what they're worth, there's not much content reproduced in 4k on tv right now, and most of the channels that do reproduce content in 4k, are paid ones. So this leaves us with the brand new PS4 Pro and PCs. PC to reproduce 4k, needs to be powerfull, which means it's expensive, which means that, by speaking with people who have really powerfull PCs, they think that, nowadays, it's still expensive for what it offers compared to 1080p monitors. That leaves us with the PS4, which might be the only thing to reproduce 4k at an somewhat reasonable price, and even then, for what I know from people who already own a normal PS4, it's not worth spending money on it just because of 4k. So, it still ends up being a gimmick, since it's a feature yet to be used to it's full potential, and it not necessary to your experience as a gamer and/or movie enthusiast, so it's an extra. And I repeat, I'm speaking about it, as of now, with the current price ranges and amount of content that could dilute the initial cost.
Maybe if I gave the example of 3D would be better. But the point still stands. 3D is something very expensive for the use most people give to it. It's one of those things that, in the beginning when is shinning new tech, everyone wants to try it, everyone wants movies in 3D, etc. As the time goes by, the hype about said technology went down and now , if someone has a budget for a TV, they will most likely choose a good normal 1080p TV over a 3D TV for that same price.
VR could suffer the same faith (although it doesn't have the same downsides to it as 3D), or not. The thing is, for now, it still appears to be a gimmick, whether it improves immersion or not. Not many games will feature it as a big part of them, and the one's who do, are not really big titles, instead titles made with VR in mind and almost solely for that purpose. There's no full Battlefield or Call of Duty or any other best selling titles that use VR as a major part of it, and I don't see them spending time and resources in making a full VR mode for their games. They keep doing what they are used to, and maybe in a 4/5 years time, when VR is a bigger thing in gaming, they will start to develop titles with that in mind. Until then, it will still be an option for both the gamer and the game dev's to buy/use it and produce content for it, respectively.
Your personal feelings might be different, but it seems to me you're speaking for everyone other than yourself here, not generally a wise thing to do.
No, I'm expressing a perspective of what VR looks like, to me and at this point in time. The "I don't see" should lead to that. The perspective that I have of VR is that it's expensive for what it offers, and many people will see the same. In fact, I don't imagine many people playing more than one hour straight, day after day, with VR, especially with the lack of content for that system. So, it's expensive for what it offers at this point. Of course not everyone will have the same perspective. A person that has an income per month of 10x the price of the VR will think it's not expensive at all. To a poor family, loosing 5€ could hit very hard, to a rich family loosing 1000 could make no difference whatsoever. Perspective.
Maybe one day comes a game that completely changes my mind about VR, until then, it feels like an extra that, if it was cheaper, could be worth the try. For now it's kind of a shot in the dark.
. Anyway is it a rock solid 50?
).
