• cardfire@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The manufacturers and the marketplaces need us to buy a new thing otherwise we would just enjoy the thing that we have until the wheels fall off. TVs had to get innovative to keep fueling replacements.

      CRT’s still minimally existed in consumer spaces when 3D TVs were being crammed down our throats. I was grateful when the DLP versus plasma versus LCD wars were over.

      But there always has to be a new product platform around the corner for businesses that are requiring endless growth will die. Consider the InstantPot as an object lesson, and then look at the absolutely ludicrous ecosystem of kitchen branded appliances that the Ninja Bullet spawned.

      Those of us that bought into vr, and then bought into it again. And then again. Like it or believe in it for reasons that clearly aren’t going to make us profit.

      I do not anticipate any AR Revolution, after both Microsoft and Google drink deeply from that goblet and clearly lost. I don’t think meta is new project in that space will be ultimately useful for anyone but perverts and con artists.

      I’m increasingly skeptical of growth and Innovation for growth and Innovations sake. I kind of just want to play, now. And also I would do crimes for a refrigerator and a washing machine that was supposed to last 20+ years of continuous operation like our grandparents had.

    • TryingSomethingNew@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      If the nearest store still has one, do a demo of it. It is quite impressive. You can see where they’re trying to get ready for whatever comes after smartphones

    • LazyBaby@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t recall any hype around it at all except that it was a thing that companies made. Most of them require glasses so I really don’t understand how they thought that would ever catch on.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Star Fox was before that (released 1993). And Pilotwings was even earlier than that (1990). Mario 64 was released in 1996. There was also a Gameboy game, X, released in 1992.

          Pilotwings might bring up some argument about whether it was really 3D because it was done purely using 2D graphics tricks, which the SNES was very good at. But it was different from the FF VI/III map view because they did have an internal 3D model that was a part of the render, while FF just stuck a sprite in the middle of the screen that looked like it added height to the flat map it was “standing on”. In Pilotwings you could climb and dive.

          But X and Star Fox did use actual rasterization to render their views. Star Fox had an additional chip in the cartridge that expanded the SNES’ processing power to handle 3d rendering, kinda like an early GPU (except this was just attached to a single game).

          I’d argue that both are really 3D, just that Pilotwings used a rendering technique that has since been abandoned while Star Fox used a (very simple) version of the 3D renderer pipeline that is still used today.

          Mario 64 greatly increased the polygon count, added textures, dynamic lighting, improved z-buffering, and took the camera off the rails that Star Fox forced (but Pilotwings didn’t).

          • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Well damn, I just got taken to school 😆

            Yup you’re absolutely right. I totally forgot about Starfox (I will argue that Pilotwings was 2D 😜)

            Funny because I always blame that game for making me an inverted Y axis guy.