HTC Enters into Contract to Exclusively Provide VR for "Ready Player One"

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,271
No matter how often we the consumer tell them we hate it, hardware vendors and content providers just can't seem to resist the temptation to enter into exclusivity deals locking out customers who just don't happen to have the right combination of hardware. It's as if they've forgotten that the very thing that made the PC a success in the marketplace to begin with was that IBM created an open standard that could be used by all.

The news today is that Steven Spielberg's upcoming Ready Player One sci-fi film, based on the novel by Ernest Cline we reported on back in 2015 will have a VR experience associated with it, or maybe even a special VR version of the film. The details are unclear at this point. What is clear is that in an exclusive deal with HTC, their hardware will be the only hardware to support this VR experience.

By all accounts VR in Resident Evil 7 was a success, with a surprisingly large proportion of players using VR, yet it was still held back by its artificial restriction to only work on the PSVR system, despite VR on the PC being vastly superior. The HTC deal above is being sold as HTC's plan to bring VR to the masses, but it seems pretty clear that the opposite is true. Petty infighting and exclusivity deals like this rather than embracing open industry standards, and universal compatibility, will reduce the public's exposure to new technologies, and limit the numbers who embrace it.

He also said that HTC is looking to make “Ready Player One” content available to mobile headsets in the U.S., hinting at bigger plans for mobile virtual reality. Currently, HTC is operating a mobile version of its Viveport store within China, but Steiber said that it aims to be “device-agnostic” and target mobile VR platforms elsewhere as well. “We are looking to bring mobile experiences around the world.”
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
special vr version of the film?
This is pretty damn retarded. Games for VR, sure. Films? That's laughable.
 

steakman1971

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
2,433
I really enjoyed the book. I'm curious what type of VR experience they might make. I am bummed about the "exclusive" deals - like you said, open standards typically win the day.
 

HeadRusch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
1,571
HTC is paying to get "Ready Player One" exclusives. Does anyone think there is an epic hit game in "Ready Player One"? No? Me either. Relax. I personally couldn't get past chapter 2 of the book, but having lived through the 80's I'm not keen on a lonely teenagers interpretation of it's pop culture....much of which I'm still trying to wash off :p
 

homernoy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
439
"artificial restriction to only work on the PSVR system, despite VR on the PC being vastly superior"

Sony is really starting to turn me off by purchasing so many VR exclusives, timed or not. They also pay for timed DLC, and the like. I'm almost ready to stop using my PS4 out of principle, since I'm a PC gamer first and these practices piss me the hell off.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,271
I don't go to see movies to get an emotional connection. I go to see movies because it's interesting.


Well, many might argue that a film is going be better when it's characters, come alive, feel more real and you can empathize with them.

You know, that way it's more suspenseful because you a dually live into it and care what happens to the characters.

Without that element most films are just a senseless series of boring special effects.

I don't know about you though. You might just be a goddamned sociopath. :p
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,612
Right now Exclusivity is literally funding most VR content at the moment so if you have an issue with it, you're a toss pot. While we would all like to hold hands and sing under rainbows and doves enjoying the perfect streamlined experience, there is a line drawn in the sand between Facebook and HTC for the premium VR experience. For my money I'm probably going to get an HTC vive this year for my ::COUGH COUGH:: "sons" Xmas present, and hope that there is more premium content as I want something that looks like crysis, not tetris, so that when I'm squeezing the life out of my enemies, I won't feel like i'm committing geometry against a fellow polygon. Getting that murder simulator feeling right needs to be so much more than assaulting something that even the squashed superdeformed in game render cast from ff7 would be able to shit on.
 

Sonicks

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,401
VR has a really low adoption rate on the PC. It shouldn't be a surprise that developers want an incentive (money, up front) to make the investment worth it. It comes down to money, not the consumer, unfortunately.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Well, many might argue that a film is going be better when it's characters, come alive, feel more real and you can empathize with them.

You know, that way it's more suspenseful because you a dually live into it and care what happens to the characters.

Without that element most films are just a senseless series of boring special effects.

I don't know about you though. You might just be a goddamned sociopath. :p
So lets take a movie that did pretty well, like Avatar. Did you emotionally connect with the paraplegic turned fake blue alien? The militaristic humans who wanted unobtanium and were willing to destroy the natives to get what they want? The blue aliens?
It was cool because it was a good story. The effects were great and even though it had a cliche plot, it was fairly interesting.

VR can make you feel like you're that person, going through their view point. I get that. But movies aren't made to emotionally connect with people. Movies tell a story.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
What about Brazzers films?
I don't know who classifies porn as movies.
Also, for those "films", they do usually add stories like a plumber comes over or a pool boy, etc.

Back to the point, can you please explain in your own words how you emotionally connect with the actors in a Brazzers film?
 

Sonicks

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,401
So lets take a movie that did pretty well, like Avatar. Did you emotionally connect with the paraplegic turned fake blue alien? The militaristic humans who wanted unobtanium and were willing to destroy the natives to get what they want? The blue aliens?
It was cool because it was a good story. The effects were great and even though it had a cliche plot, it was fairly interesting.

VR can make you feel like you're that person, going through their view point. I get that. But movies aren't made to emotionally connect with people. Movies tell a story.

Way to choose the worst example you could think of with Avatar.

Movies are stories written by people. People go through very different life experiences. If, at no point in your life, you've ever felt like you could have gone through what was being portrayed on screen or even felt like you could remotely relate to any given character on screen then I have to assume he's correct in his jokingly presumptuous sociopath claim.

You need not choose simplistic sci-fi or Marvel movie in your comparison if you choose to continue your argument. Even a fun comedy movie like Pineapple Express has very relatable characters that go through some real life stuff that has to resonate with some people. The person who wrote the story or script always comes through in some way or another on film (unless you use money-grab movies, like comic movies, as your example). Hell....even the Matrix has characters in it that go through some very basic emotional struggle that is rooted in some real world experience. There's always a very basic human connection somewhere between the lines or scenes.

For the record, I love watching movies. For everything they bring to the table be that their pure entertainment value or the very real stories that lie underneath. I enjoy it all. You can't reduce movies to "they tell a story". That simplistic view devalues all movies//books from being the works of art they can be.
 
Last edited:

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Way to choose the worst example you could think of with Avatar.

Movies are stories written by people. People go through very different life experiences. If, at no point in your life, you've ever felt like you could have gone through what was being portrayed on screen or even felt like you could remotely relate to any given character on screen then I have to assume he's correct in his jokingly presumptuous sociopath claim.

You need not choose simplistic sci-fi or Marvel movie in your comparison if you choose to continue your argument. Even a fun comedy movie like Pineapple Express has very relatable characters that go through some real life stuff that has to resonate with some people. The person who wrote the story or script always comes through in some way or another on film (unless you use money-grab movies, like comic movies, as your example). Hell....even the Matrix has characters in it that go through some very basic emotional struggle that is rooted in some real world experience. There's always a very basic human connection somewhere between the lines or scenes.

For the record, I love watching movies. For everything they bring to the table be that their pure entertainment value or the very real stories that lie underneath. I enjoy it all. You can't reduce movies to "they tell a story". That simplistic view devalues all movies//books from being the works of art they can be.
I think you're missing the point.
He equated being able to emotionally relate to characters as movie success.
I pointed out that relating to characters is not necessary in a film/movie. Then the "you might be a sociopath" came out.
Now you're turning this into, if i haven't ever related to any characters on a screen i might be a sociopath?

Look, let me state again. Emotionally connecting to film characters isn't necessary in a film. Therefore it won't matter if vive has an exclusive on a movie. That's like saying 3d effects in a movie make make it more successful/tell a better story. Most of the time it's a fluffy "cool" thing of a movie that generally distracts from the story.
 

dethklokworkorange

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
176
I think there is a lot of over generalization going on here. There is not a single master magic formula that certifies movies as "good", hence why we have an entire industry full of reviewers, who make subjective judgements on the merits of films. Anytime we mention politics, we can see how diverse people's values are, and that holds true for movies as well. Sure, there are some character driven movies that require zero special effects, and only the most basic of plot, that still manage to reach people by appealing to universal themes. There are some where individual characters' importance is dwarfed by an epic story, spanning great distances and possibly generations. And there are some that care very little for either, and simply want to blow up some &÷#$=%.
 

kledar586

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,063
still haven't finished this book, about 2 or 3 chapters in and set it down and forgot about it.
 

dethklokworkorange

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
176
I think you're missing the point.
He equated being able to emotionally relate to characters as movie success.
I pointed out that relating to characters is not necessary in a film/movie. Then the "you might be a sociopath" came out.
Now you're turning this into, if i haven't ever related to any characters on a screen i might be a sociopath?

Look, let me state again. Emotionally connecting to film characters isn't necessary in a film. Therefore it won't matter if vive has an exclusive on a movie. That's like saying 3d effects in a movie make make it more successful/tell a better story. Most of the time it's a fluffy "cool" thing of a movie that generally distracts from the story.
Speaking of Avatar, it is a great example of a pretty average movie that got a lot of attention because of the novelty of 3D. Without the glasses, it's just live action Fern Gully. Hard to believe the same number of people would have seen it EITHER time it was in theaters, if not for the 3D.
While I think sociopath is a little much (and obviously meant in jest), it is generally accepted that a large portion of the population is more interested in the events of a story if they feel some sort of attachment to some of the characters experiencing them. Look at the runaway success of Hamilton, or the fact they shoehorn a half baked love story into everything, especially if it doesn't need one. Refusing to acknowledge this basic tenet of movies (or any story) probably does come off as peculiar to many.
 
Top