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.

[shponglefan]

All I'm saying is don't rule out VR because you think it is too expensive and has no practical purpose.

I'm don't get why people don't think VR has a practical purpose.  3D virtual worlds is one of the most common threads in modern gaming and just begging for VR to up the immersion.

[jtslade]

Agreed, we have been making the best of it for FP games with keyboard and mouse or gamepad for a long time waiting for a decent replacement or next step


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DudeRegular]

The line at CES has been at 2 hours to demo the Rift. Folks are hyped big time.

[shponglefan]

The line at CES has been at 2 hours to demo the Rift. Folks are hyped big time.

Oculus sounds like they are going all out at CES: These photos prove how popular the Oculus Rift has become.  That's not a booth, it's a bloody showroom.

Also, this report from a TIME author on trying VR at CES: I Finally Tried Virtual Reality and It Brought Me to Tears

[voltz]

I think I'm still going to wait till it hits $300 or something within the range it was promised originally.

Hopefully by then, our rigs will be powerful enough under that so-called $1,000 speculation they're telling us to throw in on top of that.

[DudeRegular]

The line at CES has been at 2 hours to demo the Rift. Folks are hyped big time.

Oculus sounds like they are going all out at CES: These photos prove how popular the Oculus Rift has become.  That's not a booth, it's a bloody showroom.

Also, this report from a TIME author on trying VR at CES: I Finally Tried Virtual Reality and It Brought Me to Tears

They have a line to get in line... The booth actually isn't all that big compared to many others. There are some really big setups here.

[dkersten]

Give it a year or two and the video card manufacturers will have it all standardized and there will be a dozen options out there ranging from super cheap to top end expensive, then buy from the lower middle area and you will get the best bang for your buck, like just about all technology.  Every major display manufacturer is working on their own version right now, and half the smartphone companies and even the video card guys are getting in on it.  Let them fight it out for a year or two then pounce.. Yes, the Rift is probably ahead of everyone right now, but you know as well as I do that the others will just take what they did and either improve on it or make it cheaper.

[shponglefan]

Give it a year or two and the video card manufacturers will have it all standardized and there will be a dozen options out there ranging from super cheap to top end expensive, then buy from the lower middle area and you will get the best bang for your buck, like just about all technology.  Every major display manufacturer is working on their own version right now, and half the smartphone companies and even the video card guys are getting in on it.  Let them fight it out for a year or two then pounce.. Yes, the Rift is probably ahead of everyone right now, but you know as well as I do that the others will just take what they did and either improve on it or make it cheaper.

Ditto'd.  I'm really curious to see how everything shakes out and where Oculus ends up in the market space, especially once the HTC Vive comes out.  It's exciting!

[thomas_surles]

well now I'm just looking forward to the VR porn...

[ark_ader]

I was at CES on Friday, and every major carrier had a VR headset of some type.

Most of what they were offering was similar to my Note2 and the Google VR. Samsung's offering was much better, but the queue was a mile long.  No Oculus at the Intel stand and Nvidia was car mapping oriented.

The show was really ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- this year, and I so miss COMDEX.  This year's theme was the car and drone, not the VR.  Maybe next year...

[Howard_Casto]

The line at CES has been at 2 hours to demo the Rift. Folks are hyped big time.

I'm sure we could find photos of people waiting in line to try the Virtual Boy as well. 

Again, it's all about the games.  Everyone is waiting to see how the rift turns out and will act accordingly.  The problem is since everyone is waiting, the rift won't sell well, and thus all these other companies are going to scale back their entry into 3d and thus 3d will suck in terms of games libraries, and nobody will buy it.  It's been this way since the 80's in terms of vr.... the tech has always been there, but nobody except Nintendo was willing to go all in.... force the consumers to use 3d, which is the only way an optional accessory sells well.... you make it mandatory.  We know how well that turned out. 

I mean on the pc end, the fact that since gaming started accessory after accessory has been released to replace the keyboard and mouse combo and yet the majority of people still use a mere keyboard and mouse, because it came with the pc, speaks volumes.

[edekoning]

I mean on the pc end, the fact that since gaming started accessory after accessory has been released to replace the keyboard and mouse combo and yet the majority of people still use a mere keyboard and mouse, because it came with the pc, speaks volumes.

Its also because that combo has proven time and time again to be the optimum way of playing many types of games. The main exceptions being steering wheels and flight sticks.

[pbj]

Its also because that combo has proven time and time again to be the optimum way of playing many types of games. The main exceptions being steering wheels and flight sticks.

Eh, don't know about that.  You develop games to work with the devices everyone already has.  I've been surprised at how much Xbox controller support has permeated PC games.

[dkersten]

Eh, don't know about that.  You develop games to work with the devices everyone already has.  I've been surprised at how much Xbox controller support has permeated PC games.

My perspective on this is that these days so many games are developed for the xbox (or playstation) and then ported to the PC, which leads to the console controller being the superior way to control the game.  Personally on any FPS or RPG nobody will ever beat a mouse/keyboard for me, but then I am worthless on an xbox controller but with a mouse and keyboard I have exceptional control...

I'm still waiting for mind control interfaces... then combine mind control interfaces with VR headsets and now you have something...

[shponglefan]

the tech has always been there, but nobody except Nintendo was willing to go all in.... force the consumers to use 3d, which is the only way an optional accessory sells well.... you make it mandatory.  We know how well that turned out.

VR has traditionally failed because of ergonomics.  The Virtual Boy is a prime example of that.  The most recent round of sets have solved a lot of those issues, at least to the extent that it's a lot more usable for a lot more people.  It still has further to go, but it's come along way since the 90's.

I do agree that games are going to be a big part of it.  That and porn.  But there are some intriguing titles either with VR support or in development.  So we'll have to wait and see what happens.

[Grasshopper]

Again, it's all about the games.  Everyone is waiting to see how the rift turns out and will act accordingly.  The problem is since everyone is waiting, the rift won't sell well, and thus all these other companies are going to scale back their entry into 3d and thus 3d will suck in terms of games libraries, and nobody will buy it.  It's been this way since the 80's in terms of vr.... the tech has always been there, but nobody except Nintendo was willing to go all in.... force the consumers to use 3d, which is the only way an optional accessory sells well.... you make it mandatory.  We know how well that turned out. 

I mean on the pc end, the fact that since gaming started accessory after accessory has been released to replace the keyboard and mouse combo and yet the majority of people still use a mere keyboard and mouse, because it came with the pc, speaks volumes.

I disagree. You don't need to write a game specifically with VR in mind (although you'll obviously get better results if you do). The majority of existing 3D games will work (at least to a degree) with the Oculus Rift straight out of the box, without any need for code changes. Most (and perhaps all) of the VR functionality can be handled automatically at the driver level.

In the late 90s I owned a graphics card that was able to generate a stereoscopic image on a regular CRT monitor by using some bundled polarising shutter glasses that you connected to the card. The reason I mention this is because almost all the 3D games I owned at the time that used the DirectX drivers (and that was almost all of them) automatically worked with the shutter glasses without any need for patches etc.

Most current games will immediately benefit from the stereoscopic effect provided by the Occulus Rift. Getting a game to respond to head movements possibly won't work straight out of the box. But it's going to be minimal effort for the developers to get that feature working as well.

[lilshawn]

they are going to have to sell these things at a loss. there is no way around it. you don't make your money on the hardware, you make it on the games.

crackbook already dumped 2 billion into the company to buy it....what's a couple million more? If they want to corner the market they are going to have to do something drastic. otherwise everyone is going to wait for the HTC vive to release.

[shponglefan]

they are going to have to sell these things at a loss. there is no way around it. you don't make your money on the hardware, you make it on the games.

crackbook already dumped 2 billion into the company to buy it....what's a couple million more? If they want to corner the market they are going to have to do something drastic. otherwise everyone is going to wait for the HTC vive to release.

They've claimed they are selling the units at cost.  Coupled with the R&D time already spent, they've already sunk millions.  I can imagine they might not be keen to sink more.

[shponglefan]

Most current games will immediately benefit from the stereoscopic effect provided by the Occulus Rift. Getting a game to respond to head movements possibly won't work straight out of the box. But it's going to be minimal effort for the developers to get that feature working as well.

From what I've seen of people trying this, it seems like it could actually screw with the depth perception.

Case in point is this jacksepticeye video of Skyrim through an Oculus.  It sounds like things off in the distance actually appear really close up in VR, contrary to how they are supposed to otherwise appear (see 1:00 and 3:15):

[menace]

Personally on any FPS or RPG nobody will ever beat a mouse/keyboard for me, but then I am worthless on an xbox controller but with a mouse and keyboard I have exceptional control...

amen brother!  we just an xbox one for christmas and I massively suck at Halo now (not that I was legend before but still...)

For you tech guys, how hard would it be to re-create older games to "mostly" work in VR?  If developers could tweak their existing libraries for an decent experience, it would give others the incentive to make games for a truly immersive experience...

I would love to play some old doom games in a VR rig--just to see..

[dkersten]

video games is a multi billion dollar industry, actually a bigger industry than Hollywood, so of course a display device that takes it to the next level will have its focus on games, but who knows where the technology, once as affordable as a 32" LCD, will lead?  With all new tech, it will start out with the early adopters as the only ones buying, and the manufacturers barely breaking even on sales.  Give it a few years to build a market and manufacturing can go bigger and bring the prices down.. Like I said before, aside from a lens and a strap, the tech is basically the same as a smartphone, so give it time to get every aspect of the hardware on a single chip and the prices will drop significantly..

[lilshawn]

xboxes only made money this generation...they sold the previous original and 360 models at a loss and planned to recover their money selling games.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1048129/xbox360cost.html

the only reason sony and MS made money current gen is cause they are such crap that they basically cost bugger all to produce.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/teardown-reveals-xbox-one-costs-90-more-than-ps4-to-make/1100-6416404/

[fallacy]

or you tech guys, how hard would it be to re-create older games to "mostly" work in VR?  If developers could tweak their existing libraries for an decent experience, it would give others the incentive to make games for a truly immersive experience...

I would love to play some old doom games in a VR rig--just to see..

Oculus was founded by John Carmack (Creator of Doom) The first demo to work with Oculus  Rift was John Carmack changing the code in Doom BFG to work in the rift.

That said you don’t want to play games made for the PC screen in the rift; VR is developing it’s own rules for VR and PC games made for the screen breaks all of them; making for a bad VR experience complete with nausea.


For everyone else VR is the future if you played any of the good demos made for the Rif such as “I Expect You To Die”
https://share.oculus.com/app/i-expect-you-to-die you would quickly realize all the potential VR has and would not claim it to be a fad. Just about everyone who says it’s a fad has never tried it. It's like trying to explain taste to someone and they come back with ya I smelled it a few times one time 1 time I glanced at it, I basically get the gist and know what I are talking about… no, no you really don’t.

[lilshawn]

VR requires a very specially designed and crafted game to operate correctly with your brain. trying to shoehorn a regular game into a true 3D environment just does not work right.

there is 3D like the crap you get in the movie theatre where you can tell they are intentionally doing things because... 3D

then there is 3D where the intention is to immerse you.

playing doom quake minecraft whatever is like 3D at the movie theatre. the perspective is all wrong...proportions are off... basically the whole thing looks fake to your brain. who runs all the time at 50 yards a second? who can jump 7 feet in the air? you brain just shuts down when playing these kinds of games in VR because it's so much ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow--- your brain will literally turn your experience 2d to deal with it. believe me, it happens.

games and demos that where designed with VR immersion in mind are just fine. things look right... the proportions are correct. movement is realistic.

a new genre of games has to be created. it's not going to appeal to everyone.

I pissed around plenty with the DK1 when I bought it...made a handfull of demos, played a pile more...but I'm glad I sold it when I did.

if these companies don't get off their ass and create content (because that is 9/10ths of the battle here not the hardware) it won't matter WHO has the better system or the cheaper system or the fastest whatever... no content means NOBODY will use them.

[Howard_Casto]

Yup it's all about software, like I've said multiple times in this thread. 

The video games industry, as a whole at least, is more conservative than it's ever been in it's entire history.  That means companies aren't willing to invest time and money on experimental hardware and games.  Understand that Sony and Microsoft are massive companies.  Yeah they have vr hardware in the works, but they have 20 or 30 other things in the works as well.  They show this stuff off at tech conferences to see if any companies are willing to bite.  It doesn't mean they are going to make actual games for the thing or even release it.  Look how little support the Kinect got from Microsoft and the pseye/ps move rig from Sony. 

The only hope in VR happening, like any innovation in video games since the 80's, comes from Nintendo.  Again, like I've said multiple times in this thread, they are the only company crazy/brave enough to go all in and design a system around mandatory VR and they make the bulk of the games on their systems in-house so there is a greater level of confidence from consumers if they make a system that it will actually be supported. 

Some people have guessed that the "NX" in the Nintendo NX stands for "new experience".  So there is a very slight chance that VR might happen.  Myself I don't see them doing that considering the Wii U's sales, but you never know.  Rest assured though, it probably isn't coming from Microsoft or Sony and Facebook doesn't even make games.

[Ond]

How many of you have actually tried an Oculus unit?  I was excited about it until I demo'd one a while back, it left me feeling really nauseous.  Not saying that might not improve with different software/hardware BUT, but I'd recommend trying one before shelling out the $$$.

[shponglefan]

How many of you have actually tried an Oculus unit?  I was excited about it until I demo'd one a while back, it left me feeling really nauseous.  Not saying that might not improve with different software/hardware BUT, but I'd recommend trying one before shelling out the $$$.

I have yet to try one myself, even though I was very close to buying one blind.  I figure if I do run into nausea issues, I could always resell.

That said, at this point I'm more than likely going to try before I buy given the relative cost of buying one.

[shponglefan]

Yup it's all about software, like I've said multiple times in this thread. 

The video games industry, as a whole at least, is more conservative than it's ever been in it's entire history.  That means companies aren't willing to invest time and money on experimental hardware and games.  Understand that Sony and Microsoft are massive companies.  Yeah they have vr hardware in the works, but they have 20 or 30 other things in the works as well.  They show this stuff off at tech conferences to see if any companies are willing to bite.  It doesn't mean they are going to make actual games for the thing or even release it.  Look how little support the Kinect got from Microsoft and the pseye/ps move rig from Sony.

The big difference between things like Kinect and VR is the relative shift in game design.  As I've said earlier in the thread, the basic concept ideal for VR (3D virtual worlds) has been a staple of gaming for 20 years now.  So it's not really that radical a shift from a 2D screen to a 3D VR headset in terms of design.  Naturally, it will require games to be designed for VR in order to get the whole stereoscopic imaging/scaling/etc to work properly.  But beyond that, it's not like having to invent an entirely new kind of game to take advantage of some new-fangled concept.

And on top of that there are various non-gaming avenues for VR as well including things like virtual tourism and porn.

It's certainly still going to require software, but I think VR has a broader scope than other novel forms of gaming tech.  And therefore it has a greater chance to succeed.

[dkersten]

How many of you have actually tried an Oculus unit?  I was excited about it until I demo'd one a while back, it left me feeling really nauseous.  Not saying that might not improve with different software/hardware BUT, but I'd recommend trying one before shelling out the $$$.

I've played FPS games for years and I have always had issues with nausea and motion sickness... I could only play games like that for so long before feeling crappy and sometimes even getting severe headaches or nausea.  But I could still play for quite a long time.  Then Fallout 4 came out, and within minutes I am fighting the nausea and dizziness.  I read up on it and it had to do with field of view.. The perspective was wrong and it was causing thousands of players who are sensitive to it to really get nauseous, especially with the bigger screens today that fill more of the peripheral vision. 

My point is that if the game is done right, it will minimize the nausea effect for those who are sensitive, but if the field of view is wrong, it will turn a great experience into a nausea inducing nightmare for even those who are usually fairly immune.  It has already been said here that games made specifically for it are a far better experience, and I believe that games dialed in specifically for this device will end up helping to sell it, whereas games that are not properly optimized for it will only paint an ugly picture for the future of VR. 

[pbj]

Yup it's all about software, like I've said multiple times in this thread. 

I don't think anyone intends to use one of these as a hammer, so I'm at a loss as to why you're compelled to keep repeating this.

[lilshawn]

okay...

if you feel nauseous when trying the rift it's one of 2 things:

the computer specs weren't up to handle keeping an absolute constant 60fps (the minimum for which has been upped now) if it gives you that drunk feeling in your head when you move...this is the issue. the system requirements where pretty steep over and above the recommended requirements for a game due to the additional processing the API had to do to the image on the fly. It's been a while since I've had my DK1 but I imagine a lot of that has been worked out through DK2. the framerate requirements for the CV1 have gone up to 90fps i've heard.

or mainly...

the system wasn't adjusted for your IPD causing you to have eye divergence whist using the system.

the rift wasn't really setup to be used with multiple users in mind. you set it up for you specifically. it's okay for a quick 30- 60 second demo to use out of whack settings...but for any sustained use beyond that you really need to properly setup the view for your eyes. Adjusting the rift for you is imperative.

I mean, quite a bit of the nausea is from the eyes seeing you're moving vs your ear not sensing you're moving... but this is really only apparent after hours of playing. I only had one such experience with the rift and it was coming back to the world after I think about 4 or 5 hours of play. real world felt weird. moving and walking around felt weird. riding in a car was absolutely nauseating and felt like I drank a halfsack. (I'm glad my wife drove cause I'm POSITIVE we would have crashed) But after an hour or so everything was fine.

[Ond]

How many of you have actually tried an Oculus unit?  I was excited about it until I demo'd one a while back, it left me feeling really nauseous.  Not saying that might not improve with different software/hardware BUT, but I'd recommend trying one before shelling out the $$$.

I've played FPS games for years and I have always had issues with nausea and motion sickness... I could only play games like that for so long before feeling crappy and sometimes even getting severe headaches or nausea.  But I could still play for quite a long time.  Then Fallout 4 came out, and within minutes I am fighting the nausea and dizziness.  I read up on it and it had to do with field of view.. The perspective was wrong and it was causing thousands of players who are sensitive to it to really get nauseous, especially with the bigger screens today that fill more of the peripheral vision. 

My point is that if the game is done right, it will minimize the nausea effect for those who are sensitive, but if the field of view is wrong, it will turn a great experience into a nausea inducing nightmare for even those who are usually fairly immune.  It has already been said here that games made specifically for it are a far better experience, and I believe that games dialed in specifically for this device will end up helping to sell it, whereas games that are not properly optimized for it will only paint an ugly picture for the future of VR.

Heh, I've been playing alot of Fallout 4 lately I'm a huge fan and sometimes on a large screen (120").  Mostly I play it on our 50" TV.  I've never had issues with nausea playing these FPS style games myself, I do get a bit queasy watching other people play them.   Oculus is different though, again I strongly recommend trying one with your preferred game if possible before buying one. I'm not trying to be a negative nancy here, I'm sure many folks will be just fine with them.  Most of the comments I'm reading here are speculative though, It's a bit like the Matrix, you can't explain it to someone else they just have to experience it for themselves.  My problem was with controls not matching my expected movement (turning) in game.  The controls I was using were poor, head tracking was fine but forward movement with turns was lousy.  Time will tell I suppose, it would be good to hear from someone who has used one with a good setup.

[Ond]

okay...

if you feel nauseous when trying the rift it's one of 2 things:

the computer specs weren't up to handle keeping an absolute constant 60fps (the minimum for which has been upped now) if it gives you that drunk feeling in your head when you move...this is the issue. the system requirements where pretty steep over and above the recommended requirements for a game due to the additional processing the API had to do to the image on the fly. It's been a while since I've had my DK1 but I imagine a lot of that has been worked out through DK2. the framerate requirements for the CV1 have gone up to 90fps i've heard.

or mainly...

the system wasn't adjusted for your IPD causing you to have eye divergence whist using the system.

the rift wasn't really setup to be used with multiple users in mind. you set it up for you specifically. it's okay for a quick 30- 60 second demo to use out of whack settings...but for any sustained use beyond that you really need to properly setup the view for your eyes. Adjusting the rift for you is imperative.

I mean, quite a bit of the nausea is from the eyes seeing you're moving vs your ear not sensing you're moving... but this is really only apparent after hours of playing. I only had one such experience with the rift and it was coming back to the world after I think about 4 or 5 hours of play. real world felt weird. moving and walking around felt weird. riding in a car was absolutely nauseating and felt like I drank a halfsack. (I'm glad my wife drove cause I'm POSITIVE we would have crashed) But after an hour or so everything was fine.

Oops my late post sorry,  this guy knows what he's talking about.

[Locke141]

I always thought Augmented reality was more compelling.

I would probably but a cast VR when it comes out.
http://castar.com/news/