Oculus Rift

[shponglefan]

Pre-orders for the consumer Rift start tomorrow.  Anyone else jumping on the VR bandwagon?

I was very tempted to get a DK2 last summer, but held off knowing the consumer edition was right around the corner.  No word on price, though, which I'm taking as a sign it's going to be more expensive than expected.

[Slippyblade]

I'd LOVE to get one, but...  yeah.  Broke as broke can be, ya know?

[thomas_surles]

what is the one I have been seeing that has the round treadmill thing that is used for wlking around? Is that the same thing. I am excited to see where VR goes.

[05SRT4]

Ohh man this is all my colleague and I have been talking about at work. He is going to grab the Oculus. I am actually going to wait for the Sony VR, makes more sense since I already have the PS4 and camera.

[Howard_Casto]

I am excited to see where VR goes.

It will go about the same place 3d tvs did, or the ouya..... you know... in the garbage. 

VR is the new greatest thing that will revolutionize the industry... that comes out roughly every 10 to 15 years since the dawn of the video game industry and flops every time.  It's all about the games and thus far you don't see a lot of widespread support.  About the only company that could do VR would be Nintendo because they are the only company crazy enough to release a console that REQUIRES some crazy peripheral, thus forcing developers to support it.   If you'll notice they've already tried 2 and a half times, and the response hasn't been all that great.   

[Howard_Casto]

Hmm... maybe I should elaborate a little bit more so some people that are thinking with their hearts instead of their heads will understand. 

The reason nearly all optional video game accessories fail is due to the fact that game companies are NOT out to make fun games, rather they are out to make a profit with as little effort and risk as possible.  The fact that they sometimes release a game that is also fun is a nice side-effect.

Let's say you are AAA game developer #364 and you are working on a new game.  The game will be sold for 60 dollars.  You don't get to set this price as it's the industries set upon price and any time a game is released for more than this price without including some sort of hardware widget people complain.  You can make sequel #42 the same way you always do, with your tride and true dev kit that you've been using since before the console was released and make the game as efficiently and cheaply as possible while still creating a quality product or you can take a risk diverting manpower, development hours and money on supporting a new, costly accessory that the large majority of your consumers most likely won't own.  The answer is obvious... 9 times out of 10 the company will take the safe, conservative route.  What about indie developers and smaller studios?  Well they are faced with the exact same choice, only they don't have the large resources in terms of manpower or cash to back them up.  For them the risk is potentially even greater.  Some of them inevitably will take the risk due to desperation to make their mark on the industry (and thus make more money) but unless the risk really, really pays off it could end up being the companies last game. 

So don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if VR happened and made me look foolish as a result.... I'd certainly buy one if it became successful and thus had a lot of games, but I've got to look at what most likely will happen, not what I want to happen. 

Before someone brings up Sony and Microsoft's attempts I'll remind you that they are optional hardware for the consoles... so see above, and they both experimented heavily with 3d tvs last gen and now games that support the tech are virtually non-existent. 

[shponglefan]

The problem of adoption of VR hasn't been an issue of content: it's been an issue of hardware.  For decades, the idea of VR has always exceeded the hardware's ability to realize it.  But now, we seem to be finally on the cusp of the hardware catching up to the idea.  And that's what's so exciting about this.

Once the hardware is in place, then next comes standardization, content, affordability, and all the rest.

[dkersten]

with ultra cheap cardboard VR headsets that use your phone as the display, this is the year hardware will no longer be a limiting factor...

Although all I can think of when pondering VR is motion sickness (I get severely motion sick from first person shooters on a regular monitor, I can't even imagine how bad it would be if the fov was 100%). 

There are some pros outside of games though.. a VR headset is like a really large TV (perceptually), and new tech has put the resolution at least as high as the typical tv, so for those who can't afford a 60, 70, 80, or larger inch screen but want that big screen experience at home, this is a cheaper alternative.  Personal TV show viewing has become a standard with the younger generation, but holding a tablet or even smart phone up a few inches or a foot or two in front of your face for 2 hours is uncomfortable.. to be able to wear it is probably the next big thing for this generation.  Also, anyone doing 3D design could benefit from it.  Then there is the simulation market, not really games so much as tools for learning all sorts of tasks.  By making the hardware super cheap, it opens that up for even small companies to utilize effectively.

There is an untapped market here that goes beyond the multi billion dollar game market, and I am betting that the sudden explosion of dozens of choices ranging from less than $30 to over $3k is because companies recognize this.  Personally, it's like a 3D printer to me: intriguing but mostly useless.

[edekoning]

with ultra cheap cardboard VR headsets that use your phone as the display, this is the year hardware will no longer be a limiting factor...

Except that the Oculus Rift requires a beefy PC that the average gamer does not have.

I would love to try one out though, but I first need a game PC, as my Intel NUC won't cut it

[yotsuya]

Personally, it's like a 3D printer to me: intriguing but mostly useless.

I'd get more use out of a 3D printer, but I pretty much agree with this sentiment.

[yotsuya]

DUBLPOST!

[pbj]

VR has been "any day now" for decades.  Nobody wants it or we would have it already.

[shponglefan]

VR has been "any day now" for decades.  Nobody wants it or we would have it already.

Again, it's a case of the technology catching up to the idea.

I'd equate it with tablets in this regard.  Something that was promised by sci-fi, but for a couple decades the technology was too poor to meet expectations.  Yet, in the last half-decade, the technology finally delivered and tablets are starting to become mainstream.

Once VR technology hits the point of delivering what was originally promised, I think you'll see more widespread adoption of VR.

[shponglefan]

There is an untapped market here that goes beyond the multi billion dollar game market, and I am betting that the sudden explosion of dozens of choices ranging from less than $30 to over $3k is because companies recognize this. 

IMHO, porn/virtual sex is going to be one of the biggest drivers next to games.

[shponglefan]

And the price has been revealed: $599.  I'm assuming that's in USD, which means for Canadian customers like myself, it would end up being over $800 after foreign exchange.  Coupled with the cost of shipping and taxes, plus upgrading my graphics card, and that prices me out of the market for this.

Oh well.

edited: Saw it posted that w/ taxes and shipping, it's over $900 for Canadian customers.  Screw that.  Seems like a lot of people are being turned off by the price.

[pbj]

$600?  Dead in the water.

[Generic Eric]

:sadface:

The future has been postponed -

For the foreseeable future.

[shponglefan]

Looks like they are getting some preorders, as the expected ship date keeps moving back.  Started out as March 2016, now it's at May 2016.

I wonder if part of the pricing strategy could be to limit initial demand to what they could reasonably manufacture in the next few months?

[Generic Eric]

Looks like they are getting some preorders, as the expected ship date keeps moving back.  Started out as March 2016, now it's at May 2016.

I wonder if part of the pricing strategy could be to limit initial demand to what they could reasonably manufacture in the next few months?

I think that might be in response to pre-orders

It also could be Nintendo's Xmas strategy.  False shortage of wiis.

[pbj]

lol no.  This thing is dead unless they can sell enough to get developers interested. 

$600 plus a $1,000 computer to run it?  There's no market for this.

[Howard_Casto]

Nintendo didn't have a false shortage of Wiis.  That's right up there with conspiracy theories like 9/11 was an inside job and the moon landing was faked.  For 3 1/2 years Nintendo sold out of the console as fast as they could manufacture it, even after opening additional plants and stream-lining the process. 

dkerston:  Those 60, 70, 80 ect tvs.... they are all showing a 1080p (or less) video, so size is completely irrelevant.  The reason you get a big tv, after a certain point, is because you have a big room and you want the picture to look the same from the back.  The bigger the tv, the further back you sit from it.  That's the biggest issue with the OR actually, it's 1080p display, which is woefully inadequate for a monitor two inches from your eye.  The $600 price tag (YIKES!) might mean they have upgraded the display, but more resolution means a beefier machine.... most can't handle 4k atm and remember that two displays for stereoscopic vision means that everything has to be rendered twice in a timely fashion.

shpoglefan:  It's not technology catching up with the idea, or at least it isn't in the sense that you think it has caught up... it hasn't.  You need an ultra high res display when something is that close to the eye and some sort of natural light back-lighting to avoid eye strain.  The 600 dollar price tag has been about the going rate all these decades as well.  Why?  Well if a tv, which is rather large and easy to reliably manufacture costs a reasonable amount, then a 2 inch or less display of the same resolution is going to cost significantly more.  It's just common sense.  Plus we have cutting edge game consoles that are still struggling to produce a 1080p picture and a vr device needs at least double that. (Again, two monitors).  That isn't even addressing nagging issues like the need for motion controls which still aren't 100% perfected, some way to look at reality for the controller, the fact that only one person can view the display at a time, ect.....

[yotsuya]

Meh, for $500 I can get three hours in a REAL F-1 car instead of sitting in the living room in my underwear pretenting I'm virtually there:

http://www.bondurant.com/courses/formulasbondurant

[yotsuya]

In all seriousness, I'd much rather have a VR experience that takes me to places I CAN'T go in real life, like the moon or an undersea base.

[pbj]

There isn't some magic resolution that makes people suddenly want this.  We would have overlooked the limitations of the displays 20 years ago if there was an experience worth having on these devices. 

[yotsuya]

... if there was an experience worth having on these devices.

That's the key.

[05SRT4]

Has anyone here actually demo'd the rift yet?

Seems like any review anywhere just hypes it up because its VR and the future is now.....

I still plan on getting the Sony VR when it comes out simply because I also have a 3d printer and I like to throw my money at useless things

[yotsuya]

Has anyone here actually demo'd the rift yet?

Seems like any review anywhere just hypes it up because its VR and the future is now.....

I still plan on getting the Sony VR when it comes out simply because I also have a 3d printer and I like to throw my money at useless things

We have a new Griff-richer!!!

[shponglefan]

shpoglefan:  It's not technology catching up with the idea, or at least it isn't in the sense that you think it has caught up... it hasn't.

I never said it's fully caught up.  Certainly it hasn't and we're going to see continual improvement over the years.  Rather, I said we're on the cusp of it catching up at least to the point VR is more palatable and usable.  At least a lot moreso than it was 20 years ago.

[05SRT4]

Has anyone here actually demo'd the rift yet?

Seems like any review anywhere just hypes it up because its VR and the future is now.....

I still plan on getting the Sony VR when it comes out simply because I also have a 3d printer and I like to throw my money at useless things

We have a new Griff-richer!!!

I enjoy the fruits of my labor.
Plus I gotta spend my money on something else, my local classified's are flooded with nothing but MAME builds.

[shponglefan]

There isn't some magic resolution that makes people suddenly want this.  We would have overlooked the limitations of the displays 20 years ago if there was an experience worth having on these devices.

The problem with VR has always been the ergonomics (or lack thereof) getting in the way of the experience.  VR isn't ideal if you get a migraine and neck cramp after using the thing for 20 minutes.  Current technology has made dramatic strides in overcoming those prior limitations.

Again, look at tablets.  Once the technology caught up to the idea and started allowing the usability people needed, they started to catch on.

[vwalbridge]

I heard this from another site and it sums up my feeling of VR or Oculus Rift:

"If something's even $600, it doesn't matter how good it is, how great of an experience it is - If they just can't afford it, then it really might as we not even exist."

I think this happens to be true for most consumer technology but really becomes true when it comes to gaming devices.

The price is gonna have to drop to at least $400 for for Average-Joe-Gamer to even glance it its direction.

If you remember, the PS3 launched at $600 and that didn't go so well.

[shponglefan]

I heard this from another site and it sums up my feeling of VR or Oculus Rift:

"If something's even $600, it doesn't matter how good it is, how great of an experience it is - If they just can't afford it, then it really might as we not even exist."

I think this happens to be true for most consumer technology but really becomes true when it comes to gaming devices.

The price is gonna have to drop to at least $400 for for Average-Joe-Gamer to even glance it its direction.

If you remember, the PS3 launched at $600 and that didn't go so well.

Along these lines, affordability is certain an issue.  But I also wonder if a lot of it is expectation management.

Oculus, imho, did a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- job managing people's price expectations prior to this launch.  People's expectations were largely based on the price of the DK2 ($350).  Oculus hinted it would be more expensive, but not by how much.  A lot of people pegged this thing at coming in at $500 tops.  So when it hit for $600, people were repelled by the price.

Had Oculus managed expectations better, they could have avoided this.  For example, they could have originally hinted it at costing double the DK2 price (i.e. $700), so then when it drops at $600, it's cheaper than expected.  Instead, the exact opposite happened.

[voltz]

I really don't understand why they're doing such a shift from what they tease us previously.  The developer kits were practical enough and had they stuck with that, they'd be flying off the shelves by now knowing that this is the best (cheap) 3D anybody can get their hands on.

Now I'm actually looking forward to Sony's offering with hope they don't somehow manage to screw that up.  It would be embarrassing to have someone who's not a direct rival company to follow through on the promise that was made originally.

[dkersten]

dkersten:  Those 60, 70, 80 ect tvs.... they are all showing a 1080p (or less) video, so size is completely irrelevant.  The reason you get a big tv, after a certain point, is because you have a big room and you want the picture to look the same from the back.  The bigger the tv, the further back you sit from it.  That's the biggest issue with the OR actually, it's 1080p display, which is woefully inadequate for a monitor two inches from your eye.  The $600 price tag (YIKES!) might mean they have upgraded the display, but more resolution means a beefier machine.... most can't handle 4k atm and remember that two displays for stereoscopic vision means that everything has to be rendered twice in a timely fashion.

completely and utterly disagree here.  First, 1080 is more than sufficient on my 100" sitting 12 feet back, and when people sit in my theater room they can seldom see the difference between 1080 and 720 or 480, even at that size. (yes, I can see the difference quite clearly and 480 content on 100" is brutal to me, but 1080i is OK for regular watching, and 1080p is fantastic).  Anyone who says 1080 resolution is inadequate for a screen that occupies less than 50% of your total field of view is right up there with "audiophiles" who insist they can hear the difference between different speaker wires... (OK not quite that extreme but most don't notice it even when they know what to look for).  Frankly, I bet in a blind test if you sat in my home theater and I demo'd 1080p vs 4k you wouldn't be able to tell which is which 100% of the time. Frankly 1080p is sharp as hell on my 100" screen, and although I can see the difference between 1080 and 4k (ie 2160), it is a very minor difference, even when you have actual 4k content.  I have 1440 27" screens in front of me now, but I set them to 1600x900 because I hate tiny icons and pointers and text, and even when working in photoshop I can't notice any issues at 900 lines.  The resolution is crystal clear to me on my PC and I highly prefer it over anything sharper (and smaller).  BTW, my 100" 1080 screen has more pixels per inch than the digital projector at the movie theater. 

Second, you don't get a bigger tv so you can sit further back any more than you go to a movie at the theater to sit in the furthest row.  You go because it is a more immersive experience, and you buy the big screens for the same exact reason. 

As for small displays, if you blow up a 1080 screen that is 5" diagonal into a virtual screen that is 80", it is exactly the same as an 80" at 1080. 

shpoglefan:  It's not technology catching up with the idea, or at least it isn't in the sense that you think it has caught up... it hasn't.  You need an ultra high res display when something is that close to the eye and some sort of natural light back-lighting to avoid eye strain.

So, a 32" tv with 1080 lines of res is 68 ppi density, and that is considered "hi res".  In fact, when 1080 32" screens first came out most people in the industry thought it was a complete waste since you can't even see the difference between 720p and 1080i standing 5 feet away on a screen that size. 
A 24" computer monitor with QHD (2560x1440) is 122 ppi.  So even if a small 1080 TV isn't high enough res for you, this one has to be pretty good, right?

But a 5" screen with 1080 lines (almost every smart phone on the market today) is 440 ppi density.  That screen manufactured in a 32" would be nearly 7000 lines of resolution, almost 4 times more resolution than 4k.  And that isn't "hi res" to you?  Seriously??? 
I think you need to re-think what hi res is...  Blow up a 5" 1080 screen to a virtual 100" screen and you STILL have 1080!  Now, 1080p on 100" might not be good enough for you, but it is more than adequate for me, and as I said before, it is better pixel density than the projectors at a movie theater.  The only reason they aren't going higher in resolution now on smartphones is because it just eats power for NO GAIN.. Your eye can't see the difference between 900 lines @ 5 inches and 1080 lines @ 5 inches, let alone 1440 lines... So why make a phone screen that eats up more power for more resolution than you can see?  I have a 3 year old phone in my drawer with a 4.5" 1440 line screen and it is obsolete - that's nearly 600 pixels per inch!

The technology has absolutely caught up and far exceeds the content available to view.  When the first VR headsets came out nearly 20 years ago, they had LCD's that had 200-300 lines of resolution and cost thousands.  That low of resolution that close to your face was miserable looking, so VR was put on the back burner.  In recent years it became possible again because smart phone screens (when magnified) can do the resolutions you are used to at the big theaters.  It can outdo resolutions we had on CRT screens 15 years back and can come close to matching the pixel density of 4k 27" monitors (which also take $1000+ computers to run well).

Not only did the screen tech finally catch up, the motion sensing tech did too.. It is super cheap to build the hardware.  Most phones have everything needed, you just need a way to put it on your head and some lenses to allow it to sit 2" from your eyes.  That's why you have $30 cardboard VR devices (sans phone) coming out now.  Keep in mind though, a standalone set is still going to cost the same as a smartphone off contract, which is usually $400-$700. 

[dkersten]

There is an untapped market here that goes beyond the multi billion dollar game market, and I am betting that the sudden explosion of dozens of choices ranging from less than $30 to over $3k is because companies recognize this. 

IMHO, porn/virtual sex is going to be one of the biggest drivers next to games.

Funny, they said the EXACT same thing about DVD's when they first came out.. called it a gimmick, said it would only be used for Porn, and cited the high cost to get one. 

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years we all used a far more compact version of a VR headset in place of monitors for both personal and business use... It is cheaper to make a 600ppi 5" screen than it is to make a 100ppi 24" screen.  Strap it on your head and you can have a bigger and higher resolution monitor for working on a computer...

[pbj]

LOL WTF?  DVDs are routinely cited as one of the fastest consumer adaptations of new technology.

[vwalbridge]

LOL WTF?  DVDs are routinely cited as one of the fastest consumer adaptations of new technology.

+1. In fact, it's generally agreed that DVDs were the last successful consumer product to come out of CES. 

[jtslade]

DVD was expensive as hell in 1997.  I think my store demo unit pioneer player (there were two players available locally) was like $800 or so.


And how many people remember watching twister like a hundred times..

It was worlds better than VHS and had terrific sound and picture but yes it was home theater nuts who drove it along.

Even the divx failure didn't keep it down..

I think if s killer game or two comes out then it will move it along and the Oculus Rift 1.5 or "S" or lite version is say in the $450 range and comes with said game then it has a shot.

Oh and some incredible VR porn apps will basically make the thing sell well.. Porn sells everything.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vwalbridge]

DVD was expensive as hell in 1997.  I think my store demo unit pioneer player (there were two players available locally) was like $800 or so.

True. in 1997 they were $800 - $1000. But by the end of 2000 they were under $100 and by 2003, you could get one for under 50 bucks. So the price was always falling and quick. This was KEY and the manufactures knew it.

A new piece of technology needs to execute at least 2 things:

1. It needs to solve a problem
2. It needs to be affordable.
...

(3. If it doesn't satisfy the 2 above, then it had better be damn entertaining)

The verdict is still out for Oculus on #3, because it sure doesn't meet the criteria for 1 and 2. Especially for an accessory.

[dkersten]

Yeah, I was in the "business" back in the mid 90's and the adoption was not that graceful.  Aside from the resolution of DVD's compared to VHS (480 lines to ~240-300 with no degradation over time), the hardware for DVD was prohibitively expensive and the features were considered "only useful for Porn".  It's easy to look back 20 years later and say it was a no brainer... Betamax was a no brainer but VHS won. 

All I'm saying is don't rule out VR because you think it is too expensive and has no practical purpose.  Unless 3D holographic displays come out soon, VR might very well end up being the next step in display technology... Now that it is seeing some attention (and R&D money) it could easily explode.