Shivoa's forum posts

#1 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -
@joshwent said:

@counterclockwork87 said:

A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

Okay, not really at all what I was saying there. A company can't break the law, sure. I can't open Josh's Murder Co. and go around killing people because it's a "private" business.

I'm just saying that when governments make specific laws that dictate the policies of a privately owned company, it can cross some sketchy lines. A business should be free to create their return policies as they see fit, just as consumers are free to not shop there if they don't like said policies.

No, they should be required by law to provide goods without deception, otherwise I've got a lovely bridge you really must buy. That is what the consumer protection of sales is about, providing confidence that you're not being scammed by offering legal protection for the transaction/quality of the goods. It makes everything better.

#2 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -

This sounds like good news. I think moves to stabilise digital goods rights to more closely mirror those of physical products will increase consumer trust (gamers win), lead to more risk taking in purchases and so more upside to taking creative risks (devs win), and a healthier long term store (distributors/platform owners win). Enforcement of these consumer protections on digital stores is a great thing for everyone; it's almost as if, many years ago, people worked out that consumers who felt safe to hand over currency for goods because they knew they weren't going to get scammed made trade easier and everyone better off so they made up a set of rules that best protected equitable exchanges. Then someone decided moving from buying a box (with a load of 0s and 1s in it) to getting that product down a pipe (built to send those 0s and 1s) was a great time to try and roll back those consumer protections. And now there's all this worry about how to avoid being scammed by bad products, how products should be restricted from even getting onto infinite digital shelves to protect people, and so on.

I think this is an idea whose time has come, as I've commented before while explaining exactly how this stuff is meant to make consumers feel safe handing over their money. GOG gives you refunds for 30 days (although they could do more), even EA have some refund policy in place for not-Origin; it's time Steam changed to their "argue with a CS rep using a support ticket and maybe we'll refund you" policy.

#3 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -

Hopefully we'll have some HL2 Ep1/2 tomorrow when Twitch has recovered from any attack/issues.

Have been some great streams these last two evenings.

#4 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -

I want:

  • Media Criticism
  • Computer & Video Game Related Entertainment
  • Narrated Quick Looks/Let's Plays

The first can be in review form but generally isn't. A range of lenses (specific angles/schools of thought) applied to the medium is probably where I'm going to go first so this is sometimes niche writing, sometimes from academics, but I'd like more of this to be integrated into content on the larger sites (stuff like Campster, Mr B Tongue, and Super Bunnyhop shows this stuff does generate tens of thousands of viewers but hundreds of thousands of views like FemFreq currently looks to be outliers).

The second is mainly why I'm here on GiantBomb. The shows are related to games and enjoying the hobby and the different sides of it but it's personality driven entertainment that can also be informative. Top Gear isn't about cars, that's just the setting for the semi-scripted entertainment. Same with games, they offer a great setting for entertainment. You've even got the machinima side exploded via (not really actually) Let's Play content on YouTube (Rooster Teeth, Yogscast, and so on) which uses games as worlds in which to run semi-scripted shows and also ends up with live-action entertainment programming often coming from the same team so closer to GB content.

And the final one is because demos are either many, many GB to grab or don't show the final performance of the game (because they're a small download without the high quality assets), and that's if you can even get a demo. It's easier to get some look at someone playing the game and providing their view on how it feels and their experiences so far. GB has also been great for this sort of coverage, which generally provides a higher quality of narration than most of the Let's Play content I get exposed to (but maybe I'm just not finding the golden stuff - there are certainly a few groups who do work that's more detailed than a GB QL, if not as entertaining).

#5 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -

I'd listen to that if any of the guys were interested in producing such a show. It obviously helps that Patrick would be talking about the right team for my interests, but that somewhat raises the question about how well a general podcast can cover the entire league (or even if it would attempt to - not sure anyone is that dedicated to the sport beyond their own teams; I'm from Europe so am not sure if everyone watches RedZone or only the dedicated do or how closely NFL viewers watch the breadth of games each week - we get a single cheap GamePass subscription so each week 2 games are only available on premium TV but everything else is live & VOD so you can basically watch anything you want live and then go back for the compressed games to catch up on anything interesting).

#6 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -

@patrickklepek: My impression from the interviews has been that this project is currently being led by the Kojima's prototypers and a part of the Fox Engine team converting that engine (now that it's stable from Ground Zeros and getting ready for Phantom Pain shipping) and getting ready to ramp up to full production once the main team is done with Phantom Pain. As in this is the next game from Kojima's local team rather than just being something he's working on in writer or producer roles.

#7 Edited by Shivoa (626 posts) -

The boxes cost the same. One comes with a $100 AMD GPU inside, the other with a $150 AMD GPU inside. Those things don't scale linearly when you get to budget prices so the cheaper one loses a lot of cores and units (eg half the raster units is not good when you're only punching a 7% clock speed advantage to try and claw back) with which to render the games. The boxes are really similar so it's not like the fast but hard to code to PS3 vs the cheap and easy to code for 360, it's an easy thing to compare the SoCs and see how these systems were put together.

That reason means that every non-exclusive, if you want to play it on a console, is best on PlayStation. That's the comparison bar here. Unless it's exclusive on Xbox One then a well optimised game will be significantly stronger on the PS4 and that's the platform you should buy it on. And the devices cost the same. And the PS4 install base is currently looking quite a lot larger so dev teams will have incentive to spend longer tweaking/leading on that platform when tuning and optimising.

When you balance the scales and put every non-exclusive down as best on PS4 then it's not even close to a balanced competition. Sony got a lot of goodwill but also ended up (via risks like going for GDDR5 and lucking out that prices/availability meant they could get 8GB into the final specs rather than MS, who always knew they wanted 8GB and so were forced down the path of quad-channel DDR3 and using loads of transistors for a big eSRAM block) putting out a box that's a lot faster but doesn't cost a lot more to produce (even without the camera difference that is now removed from the core strategy) while their competition looked to be scrambling ever since they announced the box as an always-connected, TV-friendly, mandatory camera thing that is certainly not what they're advertising it as now.

Edit: to pre-empt any "but graphics don't matter" arguments: two of the three games listed as 2014 Xbox exclusives aren't exclusive to the Xbox One if you don't care about visuals. All the Halo games work just fine in a 360 (Hell, only Halo 2 is even getting a new remastering for this release) and Forza Horizon 2 is also a 360 release. Graphics and what you do with these immersive worlds matter; more perf for free is always a good deal.

#8 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -

Cross gen so it'll not look significantly better than the previous game or be able to try out new things with the extra leeway that a current gen only release would afford them. That seems even more of a bummer than the game being limited to the console no one owns for at least a few months.

#9 Edited by Shivoa (626 posts) -
@fobwashed said:

The advanced eye position measurements in the config utility where you push out the yellow bars to the edges of your periphery vision may help with some of that loss. You sound like u know more about this stuff than I do so I'll take your word for it tho =]

That is just using the way the edges of the thing you can see will change depending how closely aligned your eyes are to the ~63mm distance that the lenses are placed (think about if your eyes were really close together and looking through 2 holes, you'd not be able to see anything in the middle of the screen and so you can measure how far apart someone's eyes are by seeing how much of the screen they can see - important stuff when the typical range is 52 to 78mm and that distance is core to our feeling of scale in the world) but that will change all the rendering details. The current kit is using the 'where did you place the notches' measure to deal with changing the FoV for the user (note how the eye-lens distance is grayed out in the detail page but will change between 5mm and 15mm depending where you set the notch position).

I don't think 15mm produces a bad FoV (you're still getting plenty of peripheral vision - considering the old FoVs of devices was ~45 degrees and Rift is going for 90+ this is still better than even the closest of PC monitor glued gamers can normally expect), but the closer the lens is to your eye the better and I can't see anyone managing to get the headset over some glasses without it basically being set to the most distance position. I do have a low profile set of glasses (which I use for wearing under things like 3D movie glasses and the nVidia 3DVision branded active shutter glasses for my 3D monitor) that are much better at fitting than my normal pair but even then I'm going to be constantly worried about scratching the lenses by wearing them (so have the headset dialed to most distant if I do use that - it's much easier when taking the things off and on while coding and testing to always have glasses on).

Have to agree with you about the revelation of this implementation of IR tracking: the 1-to-1 of it is incredible. I've enjoyed stereoscopic gaming (on and off) for almost 15 years now (Google 3D Revelator - PC gamers have been enjoying our dumb niche stuff and hacking it to work with as many games as possible for a long time) and played with TrackIR things but the Rift DK2 is the first time I've felt I could not think about my head while getting the sense I could reach out and touch something that wasn't there. Steroscopic has allowed me to look into my screens before but any slight head movement broke the illusion, TrackIR was never advertising precise 1 to 1 motion; with DK2 then moving your head reinforces that illusion.

@mikey87144 said:

Extremely difficult question to ask but let's say this was being sold in stores right now, do you think this devkit would sell people on VR?

I'd say it's not ready for prime-time yet. It's good (there are clearly things that can be better and the kit still has the feel of dev-focussed so expect bugs, crashes, and sometime arcana to get stuff working right) but the software for it isn't there so there would be next to nothing to sell a user right now (this isn't helped by DK2 being different enough to require a recompile to the new SDK so all the DK1 demos out there won't work right now). The current SDK demos show what can be done with hitting 75Hz and using the current best practices for make the lag go away. Some of the 3rd party demos that have been hacked together or commercial games with beta support indicate what can go wrong if you miss that (30Hz does not feel good to me - any head motion feels like the world is constantly jerking due to the saw motion; laggy does not feel good to me - unless you're making a very drunk simulator then lag is bad!)

If you want to be able to look at a virtual space and feel like you're almost there if it wasn't for the somewhat pixellated presentation then the DK2 is pretty good. After 5 minutes you stop noticing the pixels. But right now the virtual spaces you can look around aren't much interesting to look at. Give it a year for games to be built which can handle the specific development requirements and it'll sell your average gamer or even your parents. Considering they got this kit out for $350, it's impressive how far this has come. Expect the next 10 years of GPU development to go on getting to 120Hz per eye, 4K or even more done with greater and greater virtual spaces to explore and at the same time lighter units, tracking that lets you walk around, and low latency, reliable wireless signals.

#10 Posted by Shivoa (626 posts) -

@finaldasa said:

I wear glasses. Without these glasses I can't see very far. I need these glasses.

Do you think someone could either wear glasses while wearing the Oculus? Or are there enough lenses to use that someone like me could probably find a decent substitute for my glasses?

I would think occulus would be a problem for nearsided people, not farsided people (since the screen is right up in your face. Then again, Im not really adept at science shit, so I'm not really sure how it actually works or who it might present an issue to.

The lenses actually put the screen at infinite depth (this is basically anything 30m+ where the light is as good as parallel for government work) so that's why you get B lenses with the kit (for people who can't sharply resolve parallel light when their iris muscles are totally relaxed and so need a slight angle/the screen to be closer). This also means you don't get eyestrain from using them as your muscles (that change the shape of the iris) are relaxed because that's natural for focus at infinity.

I got my DK2 recently and have ok but not great vision (I wear glasses to have great vision because we have the technology so why wouldn't I want 20:12 vision) and have found the B lenses are better for me (I can use the A lenses and wouldn't complain if that was the only option but it's not as good as with the Bs in). The reason why Oculus recommend contact lenses is that the further away from your eyes the lenses in the headset are, the lower the FoV you get so if you make enough space for glasses then you'll lose some peripheral vision and have a less than ideal experience.