I don't really see the conflict, though.
The reason why Kinect and Wii are considered gimmicks was because at the end of the day, the control method stunk. There's nothing wrong with motion controls. Motion controls are great in theory. They're essential for true VR. But the Wii and Kinect were gimmicks because the motion was fundamentally broken. Only the casuals could accept these control schemes. If you sold a controller where the A button failed to register once every 10 clicks, it'd be returned as defective. Yet, this kind of clunk was deemed an acceptable control scheme with the motion of Kinect and Wii.
My point being this: the casual applications for VR have the same harsh technical demands as gaming. Maybe more so. Casuals are going to want high resolution for there ________. Gamers would probably be more forgiving than a non-gamer wondering why their VR conference is all blocky looking. Same things with latency. Casuals aren't going to tolerate a 10 hour breaking in period to get the VR legs. It needs to not make them sick the first time they put it on. So I don't really worry about a "dumbing down" in this regard. I think chasing the casuals will drive higher standards than chasing gamers would.
The reason why Kinect and Wii are considered gimmicks was because at the end of the day, the control method stunk. There's nothing wrong with motion controls. Motion controls are great in theory. They're essential for true VR. But the Wii and Kinect were gimmicks because the motion was fundamentally broken. Only the casuals could accept these control schemes. If you sold a controller where the A button failed to register once every 10 clicks, it'd be returned as defective. Yet, this kind of clunk was deemed an acceptable control scheme with the motion of Kinect and Wii.
My point being this: the casual applications for VR have the same harsh technical demands as gaming. Maybe more so. Casuals are going to want high resolution for there ________. Gamers would probably be more forgiving than a non-gamer wondering why their VR conference is all blocky looking. Same things with latency. Casuals aren't going to tolerate a 10 hour breaking in period to get the VR legs. It needs to not make them sick the first time they put it on. So I don't really worry about a "dumbing down" in this regard. I think chasing the casuals will drive higher standards than chasing gamers would.
[quote="Paul33993"]I don't really see the conflict, though.
The reason why Kinect and Wii are considered gimmicks was because at the end of the day, the control method stunk. There's nothing wrong with motion controls. Motion controls are great in theory. They're essential for true VR. But the Wii and Kinect were gimmicks because the motion was fundamentally broken. Only the casuals could accept these control schemes. If you sold a controller where the A button failed to register once every 10 clicks, it'd be returned as defective. Yet, this kind of clunk was deemed an acceptable control scheme with the motion of Kinect and Wii.
My point being this: the casual applications for VR have the same harsh technical demands as gaming. Maybe more so. Casuals are going to want high resolution for there ________. Gamers would probably be more forgiving than a non-gamer wondering why their VR conference is all blocky looking. Same things with latency. Casuals aren't going to tolerate a 10 hour breaking in period to get the VR legs. It needs to not make them sick the first time they put it on. So I don't really worry about a "dumbing down" in this regard. I think chasing the casuals will drive higher standards than chasing gamers would.[/quote]What you wrote in the first paragraph had me nodding my head in agreement. But the second paragraph left me confused.
One the one hand, you're saying that casuals would accept all sorts of technical shortcomings that gamers wouldn't (ie. crap controls). On the other hand, you say that *gamers* would accept various technical shortcomings that casuals wouldn't (poor resolution, latency).
If Wii proved that casuals accept low standards, why would chasing casusals this time around drive higher ones?
btw, I don't think the wii or Kinect are very good comparison points to VR in any case. The reason they were "casual" is because they were inherently social, as were the games designed for them. They offered games that Mum and Dad and the kids and grandpa and the neighbours could all play together.
VR, at least at this stage, will be inherently solitary. So, it's an entirely different prospect that will be a very different target market from the get go.
Eventually, VR will become social, where 4 friends can all put on a helmet and interact together in a virtual world. But that sort of experience won't become mainstream for a looooong time, due to cost, complexity, and required horsepower. (I guess it will happen in online multiplayer soon enough, but that's probably not a very 'casual' market either).
Average Joe isn't going to spend $1200 on 4 VR headsets. Even if he did, his console wouldn't be able to handle 4 separate rendering processes. Even if it did, most games probably wouldn't support it. Or if Average Joe was indeed using a high-end PC in his lounge room, with the grunt to push 4 separate VR units, well, he wouldn't be Average Joe anymore. He'd be Power-user Pete.
Paul33993 said:I don't really see the conflict, though.
The reason why Kinect and Wii are considered gimmicks was because at the end of the day, the control method stunk. There's nothing wrong with motion controls. Motion controls are great in theory. They're essential for true VR. But the Wii and Kinect were gimmicks because the motion was fundamentally broken. Only the casuals could accept these control schemes. If you sold a controller where the A button failed to register once every 10 clicks, it'd be returned as defective. Yet, this kind of clunk was deemed an acceptable control scheme with the motion of Kinect and Wii.
My point being this: the casual applications for VR have the same harsh technical demands as gaming. Maybe more so. Casuals are going to want high resolution for there ________. Gamers would probably be more forgiving than a non-gamer wondering why their VR conference is all blocky looking. Same things with latency. Casuals aren't going to tolerate a 10 hour breaking in period to get the VR legs. It needs to not make them sick the first time they put it on. So I don't really worry about a "dumbing down" in this regard. I think chasing the casuals will drive higher standards than chasing gamers would.
What you wrote in the first paragraph had me nodding my head in agreement. But the second paragraph left me confused.
One the one hand, you're saying that casuals would accept all sorts of technical shortcomings that gamers wouldn't (ie. crap controls). On the other hand, you say that *gamers* would accept various technical shortcomings that casuals wouldn't (poor resolution, latency).
If Wii proved that casuals accept low standards, why would chasing casusals this time around drive higher ones?
btw, I don't think the wii or Kinect are very good comparison points to VR in any case. The reason they were "casual" is because they were inherently social, as were the games designed for them. They offered games that Mum and Dad and the kids and grandpa and the neighbours could all play together.
VR, at least at this stage, will be inherently solitary. So, it's an entirely different prospect that will be a very different target market from the get go.
Eventually, VR will become social, where 4 friends can all put on a helmet and interact together in a virtual world. But that sort of experience won't become mainstream for a looooong time, due to cost, complexity, and required horsepower. (I guess it will happen in online multiplayer soon enough, but that's probably not a very 'casual' market either).
Average Joe isn't going to spend $1200 on 4 VR headsets. Even if he did, his console wouldn't be able to handle 4 separate rendering processes. Even if it did, most games probably wouldn't support it. Or if Average Joe was indeed using a high-end PC in his lounge room, with the grunt to push 4 separate VR units, well, he wouldn't be Average Joe anymore. He'd be Power-user Pete.
NEXT NEWS
Porn filmaker wants to buy Oculus technology so their costumers can watch Virtual Reality porn movies
[img]http://www.peeperz.com/wp-content/uploads/Virtual-Fucking.jpg[/img]
[quote="Volnaiskra"]
Eventually, VR will become social, where 4 friends can all put on a helmet and interact together in a virtual world. But that sort of experience won't become mainstream for a looooong time, due to cost, complexity, and required horsepower. (I guess it will happen in online multiplayer soon enough, but that's probably not a very 'casual' market either).
Average Joe isn't going to spend $1200 on 4 VR headsets. Even if he did, his console wouldn't be able to handle 4 separate rendering processes. Even if it did, most games probably wouldn't support it. Or if Average Joe was indeed using a high-end PC in his lounge room, with the grunt to push 4 separate VR units, well, he wouldn't be Average Joe anymore. He'd be Power-user Pete.[/quote]
The folks that poopoo Console gaming systems overlook the #1 (mostly vaporware) selling point of them - IE: "1-4 players" or the "social" aspect possibility of them. (I mention "vaporware" as I'm fairly clueless on how many games actually support more than 1 player using the system at a time)
I've read elsewhere where a cross between "Sony Home" and "Secondlife" sort of thing might get some traction, imagine a low resolution/cartoonish world that you could explore online with friends and family. (maybe more like VR meets WoW)
The popularity of online multiplayer games does not seem to be getting any weaker, millions are still happy with subscribing to WoW graphics, toss in some VR ontop of the above concepts and with inexpensive enough headsets there might be enough to gain main stream interest in the concept.
IMHO: the "mass market" acceptance will depend on not getting headaches or sick while using it (recall all the poopoo on 3D because of 'headaches') not on how visually "stunning" or realistic the virtual experience looks like.
The above defines the "conflict".
Those of us who do our gaming in Stereoscopic 3D represent the top 5% of the market (maybe even smaller than that) and have invested heavy into the hardware to drive our games to look/play good in S3D while the majority of the market lags behind on EOL hardware/software. To gain any "mass appeal" the graphics quality and resolutions (+cost to drive it) have to be within reach of the masses otherwise it will have limited sales and/or plenty of returns because of underpowered hardware used to drive the experience.
So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.
Volnaiskra said:
Eventually, VR will become social, where 4 friends can all put on a helmet and interact together in a virtual world. But that sort of experience won't become mainstream for a looooong time, due to cost, complexity, and required horsepower. (I guess it will happen in online multiplayer soon enough, but that's probably not a very 'casual' market either).
Average Joe isn't going to spend $1200 on 4 VR headsets. Even if he did, his console wouldn't be able to handle 4 separate rendering processes. Even if it did, most games probably wouldn't support it. Or if Average Joe was indeed using a high-end PC in his lounge room, with the grunt to push 4 separate VR units, well, he wouldn't be Average Joe anymore. He'd be Power-user Pete.
The folks that poopoo Console gaming systems overlook the #1 (mostly vaporware) selling point of them - IE: "1-4 players" or the "social" aspect possibility of them. (I mention "vaporware" as I'm fairly clueless on how many games actually support more than 1 player using the system at a time)
I've read elsewhere where a cross between "Sony Home" and "Secondlife" sort of thing might get some traction, imagine a low resolution/cartoonish world that you could explore online with friends and family. (maybe more like VR meets WoW)
The popularity of online multiplayer games does not seem to be getting any weaker, millions are still happy with subscribing to WoW graphics, toss in some VR ontop of the above concepts and with inexpensive enough headsets there might be enough to gain main stream interest in the concept.
IMHO: the "mass market" acceptance will depend on not getting headaches or sick while using it (recall all the poopoo on 3D because of 'headaches') not on how visually "stunning" or realistic the virtual experience looks like.
The above defines the "conflict".
Those of us who do our gaming in Stereoscopic 3D represent the top 5% of the market (maybe even smaller than that) and have invested heavy into the hardware to drive our games to look/play good in S3D while the majority of the market lags behind on EOL hardware/software. To gain any "mass appeal" the graphics quality and resolutions (+cost to drive it) have to be within reach of the masses otherwise it will have limited sales and/or plenty of returns because of underpowered hardware used to drive the experience.
So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.
[quote="mbloof"]So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.[/quote]
So maybe Oculus/FB will wait for that when mobile devices are powerfull enough, which will be al long time from now, if ever. But then again, the mobiletechnologie is going fast, so who knows?
mbloof said:So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.
So maybe Oculus/FB will wait for that when mobile devices are powerfull enough, which will be al long time from now, if ever. But then again, the mobiletechnologie is going fast, so who knows?
[quote="Schmeltzer"][quote="mbloof"]So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.[/quote]
So maybe Oculus/FB will wait for that when mobile devices are powerfull enough, which will be al long time from now, if ever. But then again, the mobiletechnologie is going fast, so who knows?[/quote]
I doubt they are relying on mobile technology as there benchmark. Though I do think that the Rift games are going to look like something between mobile games / games of today.
---------------------------------
They want people to design games where the "average" consumer is always maintaining around 75fps @ 1080P as of "now".
As an example Volnaiskra has 2xTitans and often says he has trouble maintaining constand 120FPS. With 3D vision + scaling thats like 110-90FPS[2D] depending on game.
They aren't going to even expcet the average user to have half that rig.
I do think that people expecting the "future of gaming" will be surprised when they see the "games of yesteryear."
mbloof said:So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.
So maybe Oculus/FB will wait for that when mobile devices are powerfull enough, which will be al long time from now, if ever. But then again, the mobiletechnologie is going fast, so who knows?
I doubt they are relying on mobile technology as there benchmark. Though I do think that the Rift games are going to look like something between mobile games / games of today.
---------------------------------
They want people to design games where the "average" consumer is always maintaining around 75fps @ 1080P as of "now".
As an example Volnaiskra has 2xTitans and often says he has trouble maintaining constand 120FPS. With 3D vision + scaling thats like 110-90FPS[2D] depending on game.
They aren't going to even expcet the average user to have half that rig.
I do think that people expecting the "future of gaming" will be surprised when they see the "games of yesteryear."
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
I think that one of the advantages of VR is similar to 3D, it can make a really old game fantastic. I was surprised how well some games like quake, minecraft, system shock 2, etc looked in VR. I really believe graphics won't matter that much, and in that sense Project Morpheus will do great, because all games will be 60 fps, where someone will try Oculus with Crysis 3 with their Geforce 660 and he's going to puke with 20 fps of VR experience, and they won't touch VR again.
I think that one of the advantages of VR is similar to 3D, it can make a really old game fantastic. I was surprised how well some games like quake, minecraft, system shock 2, etc looked in VR. I really believe graphics won't matter that much, and in that sense Project Morpheus will do great, because all games will be 60 fps, where someone will try Oculus with Crysis 3 with their Geforce 660 and he's going to puke with 20 fps of VR experience, and they won't touch VR again.
All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com
I agree with birthright. VR games don't have to look great, they just have to look good enough. When I first put on my dk1.0 I wasn't blown away by the gfx, it was the experience I really liked. But dk1.0 is far from "good enough" imho, but it made me aware of the potential of VR. I was actually suprised to see how many people were blown away by dk1 though, I mean, it's not that good, is it?
Anyways, looking forward for dk2.0 big time!!!
I agree with birthright. VR games don't have to look great, they just have to look good enough. When I first put on my dk1.0 I wasn't blown away by the gfx, it was the experience I really liked. But dk1.0 is far from "good enough" imho, but it made me aware of the potential of VR. I was actually suprised to see how many people were blown away by dk1 though, I mean, it's not that good, is it?
[quote="Schmeltzer"][quote="mbloof"]So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.[/quote]
So maybe Oculus/FB will wait for that when mobile devices are powerfull enough, which will be al long time from now, if ever. But then again, the mobiletechnologie is going fast, so who knows?[/quote]
The issue with "mobile" is where do you draw the line? Are we talking phone/tablet or ultrabook here? I agree with Eqzitara that they are likely not going to wait for the true mobile stuff to catch up.
I think Birthright has a good point. There's a treasure trove of older titles that are fun to play that if re-released optimized for the rift might create a whole new experience. Even my 'Quake1/Doom1' examples were 'cutting edge' at the time of release and a recent jaunt in Quake3 in 3D did not look 1/2 bad. Even "The Sims" looks better in 3D on my underpowered 3D laptop than it does in 2D.
I guess my "worry" is that if they "settle" for a underpowered target they'll gimp the hardware (and software) so that those that have the CPU+GPU's to drive better experiences won't be able to.
(granted, the worry is mostly unfounded as while many modern games can be ran on GTX8000 series there's almost always plenty of "eye candy" offered for higher powered rigs).
mbloof said:So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.
So maybe Oculus/FB will wait for that when mobile devices are powerfull enough, which will be al long time from now, if ever. But then again, the mobiletechnologie is going fast, so who knows?
The issue with "mobile" is where do you draw the line? Are we talking phone/tablet or ultrabook here? I agree with Eqzitara that they are likely not going to wait for the true mobile stuff to catch up.
I think Birthright has a good point. There's a treasure trove of older titles that are fun to play that if re-released optimized for the rift might create a whole new experience. Even my 'Quake1/Doom1' examples were 'cutting edge' at the time of release and a recent jaunt in Quake3 in 3D did not look 1/2 bad. Even "The Sims" looks better in 3D on my underpowered 3D laptop than it does in 2D.
I guess my "worry" is that if they "settle" for a underpowered target they'll gimp the hardware (and software) so that those that have the CPU+GPU's to drive better experiences won't be able to.
(granted, the worry is mostly unfounded as while many modern games can be ran on GTX8000 series there's almost always plenty of "eye candy" offered for higher powered rigs).
[quote="Volnaiskra"][quote="Paul33993"]I don't really see the conflict, though.
The reason why Kinect and Wii are considered gimmicks was because at the end of the day, the control method stunk. There's nothing wrong with motion controls. Motion controls are great in theory. They're essential for true VR. But the Wii and Kinect were gimmicks because the motion was fundamentally broken. Only the casuals could accept these control schemes. If you sold a controller where the A button failed to register once every 10 clicks, it'd be returned as defective. Yet, this kind of clunk was deemed an acceptable control scheme with the motion of Kinect and Wii.
My point being this: the casual applications for VR have the same harsh technical demands as gaming. Maybe more so. Casuals are going to want high resolution for there ________. Gamers would probably be more forgiving than a non-gamer wondering why their VR conference is all blocky looking. Same things with latency. Casuals aren't going to tolerate a 10 hour breaking in period to get the VR legs. It needs to not make them sick the first time they put it on. So I don't really worry about a "dumbing down" in this regard. I think chasing the casuals will drive higher standards than chasing gamers would.[/quote]What you wrote in the first paragraph had me nodding my head in agreement. But the second paragraph left me confused.
One the one hand, you're saying that casuals would accept all sorts of technical shortcomings that gamers wouldn't (ie. crap controls). On the other hand, you say that *gamers* would accept various technical shortcomings that casuals wouldn't (poor resolution, latency).
If Wii proved that casuals accept low standards, why would chasing casusals this time around drive higher ones?
btw, I don't think the wii or Kinect are very good comparison points to VR in any case. The reason they were "casual" is because they were inherently social, as were the games designed for them. They offered games that Mum and Dad and the kids and grandpa and the neighbours could all play together.
VR, at least at this stage, will be inherently solitary. So, it's an entirely different prospect that will be a very different target market from the get go.
Eventually, VR will become social, where 4 friends can all put on a helmet and interact together in a virtual world. But that sort of experience won't become mainstream for a looooong time, due to cost, complexity, and required horsepower. (I guess it will happen in online multiplayer soon enough, but that's probably not a very 'casual' market either).
Average Joe isn't going to spend $1200 on 4 VR headsets. Even if he did, his console wouldn't be able to handle 4 separate rendering processes. Even if it did, most games probably wouldn't support it. Or if Average Joe was indeed using a high-end PC in his lounge room, with the grunt to push 4 separate VR units, well, he wouldn't be Average Joe anymore. He'd be Power-user Pete.[/quote]
Just based off anecdotal evidence really. We've seen threads on basically all internet forums where people with Dev kit 1s, even if they felt horrendous, would stick with it. And they'd tell other people to. Telling them that if you increase exposure more and more each day, you'll get your sea legs and it'll stop making you get simulator sickness.
There were documented instances where a couple people even threw up the first time they used the Rift.
My second paragraph is basically talking about how you need high end tech to combat simulator sickness. And if you want the casual market, you can't have a 20 step process of gradually increasing exposure until the point you no longer get simulator sickness. The process has to consist of this:
Step 1.) Put on Rift.
Step 2.) Enjoy.
Paul33993 said:I don't really see the conflict, though.
The reason why Kinect and Wii are considered gimmicks was because at the end of the day, the control method stunk. There's nothing wrong with motion controls. Motion controls are great in theory. They're essential for true VR. But the Wii and Kinect were gimmicks because the motion was fundamentally broken. Only the casuals could accept these control schemes. If you sold a controller where the A button failed to register once every 10 clicks, it'd be returned as defective. Yet, this kind of clunk was deemed an acceptable control scheme with the motion of Kinect and Wii.
My point being this: the casual applications for VR have the same harsh technical demands as gaming. Maybe more so. Casuals are going to want high resolution for there ________. Gamers would probably be more forgiving than a non-gamer wondering why their VR conference is all blocky looking. Same things with latency. Casuals aren't going to tolerate a 10 hour breaking in period to get the VR legs. It needs to not make them sick the first time they put it on. So I don't really worry about a "dumbing down" in this regard. I think chasing the casuals will drive higher standards than chasing gamers would.
What you wrote in the first paragraph had me nodding my head in agreement. But the second paragraph left me confused.
One the one hand, you're saying that casuals would accept all sorts of technical shortcomings that gamers wouldn't (ie. crap controls). On the other hand, you say that *gamers* would accept various technical shortcomings that casuals wouldn't (poor resolution, latency).
If Wii proved that casuals accept low standards, why would chasing casusals this time around drive higher ones?
btw, I don't think the wii or Kinect are very good comparison points to VR in any case. The reason they were "casual" is because they were inherently social, as were the games designed for them. They offered games that Mum and Dad and the kids and grandpa and the neighbours could all play together.
VR, at least at this stage, will be inherently solitary. So, it's an entirely different prospect that will be a very different target market from the get go.
Eventually, VR will become social, where 4 friends can all put on a helmet and interact together in a virtual world. But that sort of experience won't become mainstream for a looooong time, due to cost, complexity, and required horsepower. (I guess it will happen in online multiplayer soon enough, but that's probably not a very 'casual' market either).
Average Joe isn't going to spend $1200 on 4 VR headsets. Even if he did, his console wouldn't be able to handle 4 separate rendering processes. Even if it did, most games probably wouldn't support it. Or if Average Joe was indeed using a high-end PC in his lounge room, with the grunt to push 4 separate VR units, well, he wouldn't be Average Joe anymore. He'd be Power-user Pete.
Just based off anecdotal evidence really. We've seen threads on basically all internet forums where people with Dev kit 1s, even if they felt horrendous, would stick with it. And they'd tell other people to. Telling them that if you increase exposure more and more each day, you'll get your sea legs and it'll stop making you get simulator sickness.
There were documented instances where a couple people even threw up the first time they used the Rift.
My second paragraph is basically talking about how you need high end tech to combat simulator sickness. And if you want the casual market, you can't have a 20 step process of gradually increasing exposure until the point you no longer get simulator sickness. The process has to consist of this:
Carmack had a nicely measured response, which made more sense to me. More of "let's see" idea, which seems right.
Abrash going to Oculus as well is definitely another reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I certainly hope it all works out.
I'm always concerned though when I see weasels taking charge. Here are the weasel words from the Kickstarter update:
[i]At first glance, it might not seem obvious why Oculus is partnering with Facebook, a company focused on connecting people, investing in internet access for the world and pushing an open computing platform. But when you consider it more carefully, we’re culturally aligned with a focus on innovating and hiring the best and brightest; we believe communication drives new platforms; we want to contribute to a more open, connected world; and we both see virtual reality as the next step.[/i]
No one normal talks that way. "But when you consider it more carefully.." "best and the brightest"
Please!
This is straight up PR weasel speak and it's worrisome. I've been at lots of tech companies where the best engineers were thwarted at every step by weasels.
Carmack had a nicely measured response, which made more sense to me. More of "let's see" idea, which seems right.
Abrash going to Oculus as well is definitely another reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I certainly hope it all works out.
I'm always concerned though when I see weasels taking charge. Here are the weasel words from the Kickstarter update:
At first glance, it might not seem obvious why Oculus is partnering with Facebook, a company focused on connecting people, investing in internet access for the world and pushing an open computing platform. But when you consider it more carefully, we’re culturally aligned with a focus on innovating and hiring the best and brightest; we believe communication drives new platforms; we want to contribute to a more open, connected world; and we both see virtual reality as the next step.
No one normal talks that way. "But when you consider it more carefully.." "best and the brightest"
Please!
This is straight up PR weasel speak and it's worrisome. I've been at lots of tech companies where the best engineers were thwarted at every step by weasels.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Yeah, that's standard PR mumbo jumbo. But it couldn't really be anything else. When a large company wants to explain a multi-billion dollar deal to the public, they're not going to get Rootin' Tootin' Straight-shootin' Loose Cannon Larry on the job. They're going to get their top PR person to do it.
And as far as I know, almost all PR people are taught to talk like that (and probably for good reason: when you don't actually SAY anything, it's hard to get your company into trouble). With a million tweeters and internet trolls ready to pounce on my every word and quote me out of context, I'd probably speak like that too :D
Yeah, that's standard PR mumbo jumbo. But it couldn't really be anything else. When a large company wants to explain a multi-billion dollar deal to the public, they're not going to get Rootin' Tootin' Straight-shootin' Loose Cannon Larry on the job. They're going to get their top PR person to do it.
And as far as I know, almost all PR people are taught to talk like that (and probably for good reason: when you don't actually SAY anything, it's hard to get your company into trouble). With a million tweeters and internet trolls ready to pounce on my every word and quote me out of context, I'd probably speak like that too :D
Fact of the matter is Oculus could have never gotten to where they were today with out the venture capital money. They'd taken over 100 million dollars. Without, DK1 is basically where Oculus began and ends. And I don't think anyone would have been excited by that.
With the VC money, it was always ending in sale to a mega-corporation. It's also the only way you could pull off VR with high quality components. My nightmare has long been waking to the news MS purchased them.
I guess I'm just more pragmatic than most. If people were just taking out their smile and didn't really believe this was good, I highly doubt we'd keep seeing the Valve VR hardware guys constantly defecting over to Oculus.
Fact of the matter is Oculus could have never gotten to where they were today with out the venture capital money. They'd taken over 100 million dollars. Without, DK1 is basically where Oculus began and ends. And I don't think anyone would have been excited by that.
With the VC money, it was always ending in sale to a mega-corporation. It's also the only way you could pull off VR with high quality components. My nightmare has long been waking to the news MS purchased them.
I guess I'm just more pragmatic than most. If people were just taking out their smile and didn't really believe this was good, I highly doubt we'd keep seeing the Valve VR hardware guys constantly defecting over to Oculus.
Who knows what is going to happen. Large sums of money does change the nature of the beast. While I don't necessarily agree entirely with this video, it is still good for a laugh. There is probably some truth though in this jest, but we'll see....
[url]http://gawker.com/heres-how-facebook-could-completely-ruin-the-oculus-ri-1555440838[/url]
Who knows what is going to happen. Large sums of money does change the nature of the beast. While I don't necessarily agree entirely with this video, it is still good for a laugh. There is probably some truth though in this jest, but we'll see....
[quote="Paul33993"]I guess I'm just more pragmatic than most. If people were just taking out their smile and didn't really believe this was good, I highly doubt we'd keep seeing the Valve VR hardware guys constantly defecting over to Oculus.[/quote]You underestimate the power of the weasel to absolutely ruin, block, and delay terrific technology.
Paul33993 said:I guess I'm just more pragmatic than most. If people were just taking out their smile and didn't really believe this was good, I highly doubt we'd keep seeing the Valve VR hardware guys constantly defecting over to Oculus.
You underestimate the power of the weasel to absolutely ruin, block, and delay terrific technology.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
The reason why Kinect and Wii are considered gimmicks was because at the end of the day, the control method stunk. There's nothing wrong with motion controls. Motion controls are great in theory. They're essential for true VR. But the Wii and Kinect were gimmicks because the motion was fundamentally broken. Only the casuals could accept these control schemes. If you sold a controller where the A button failed to register once every 10 clicks, it'd be returned as defective. Yet, this kind of clunk was deemed an acceptable control scheme with the motion of Kinect and Wii.
My point being this: the casual applications for VR have the same harsh technical demands as gaming. Maybe more so. Casuals are going to want high resolution for there ________. Gamers would probably be more forgiving than a non-gamer wondering why their VR conference is all blocky looking. Same things with latency. Casuals aren't going to tolerate a 10 hour breaking in period to get the VR legs. It needs to not make them sick the first time they put it on. So I don't really worry about a "dumbing down" in this regard. I think chasing the casuals will drive higher standards than chasing gamers would.
One the one hand, you're saying that casuals would accept all sorts of technical shortcomings that gamers wouldn't (ie. crap controls). On the other hand, you say that *gamers* would accept various technical shortcomings that casuals wouldn't (poor resolution, latency).
If Wii proved that casuals accept low standards, why would chasing casusals this time around drive higher ones?
btw, I don't think the wii or Kinect are very good comparison points to VR in any case. The reason they were "casual" is because they were inherently social, as were the games designed for them. They offered games that Mum and Dad and the kids and grandpa and the neighbours could all play together.
VR, at least at this stage, will be inherently solitary. So, it's an entirely different prospect that will be a very different target market from the get go.
Eventually, VR will become social, where 4 friends can all put on a helmet and interact together in a virtual world. But that sort of experience won't become mainstream for a looooong time, due to cost, complexity, and required horsepower. (I guess it will happen in online multiplayer soon enough, but that's probably not a very 'casual' market either).
Average Joe isn't going to spend $1200 on 4 VR headsets. Even if he did, his console wouldn't be able to handle 4 separate rendering processes. Even if it did, most games probably wouldn't support it. Or if Average Joe was indeed using a high-end PC in his lounge room, with the grunt to push 4 separate VR units, well, he wouldn't be Average Joe anymore. He'd be Power-user Pete.
Porn filmaker wants to buy Oculus technology so their costumers can watch Virtual Reality porn movies
The folks that poopoo Console gaming systems overlook the #1 (mostly vaporware) selling point of them - IE: "1-4 players" or the "social" aspect possibility of them. (I mention "vaporware" as I'm fairly clueless on how many games actually support more than 1 player using the system at a time)
I've read elsewhere where a cross between "Sony Home" and "Secondlife" sort of thing might get some traction, imagine a low resolution/cartoonish world that you could explore online with friends and family. (maybe more like VR meets WoW)
The popularity of online multiplayer games does not seem to be getting any weaker, millions are still happy with subscribing to WoW graphics, toss in some VR ontop of the above concepts and with inexpensive enough headsets there might be enough to gain main stream interest in the concept.
IMHO: the "mass market" acceptance will depend on not getting headaches or sick while using it (recall all the poopoo on 3D because of 'headaches') not on how visually "stunning" or realistic the virtual experience looks like.
The above defines the "conflict".
Those of us who do our gaming in Stereoscopic 3D represent the top 5% of the market (maybe even smaller than that) and have invested heavy into the hardware to drive our games to look/play good in S3D while the majority of the market lags behind on EOL hardware/software. To gain any "mass appeal" the graphics quality and resolutions (+cost to drive it) have to be within reach of the masses otherwise it will have limited sales and/or plenty of returns because of underpowered hardware used to drive the experience.
So while us S3D gamers are wanting a "Tombraider" experience in VR they'll have little choice but to deliver a VR version of "Doom1" or "Quake1" to run on the hardware owned by the masses.
i7-2600K-4.5Ghz/Corsair H100i/8GB/GTX780SC-SLI/Win7-64/1200W-PSU/Samsung 840-500GB SSD/Coolermaster-Tower/Benq 1080ST @ 100"
So maybe Oculus/FB will wait for that when mobile devices are powerfull enough, which will be al long time from now, if ever. But then again, the mobiletechnologie is going fast, so who knows?
I doubt they are relying on mobile technology as there benchmark. Though I do think that the Rift games are going to look like something between mobile games / games of today.
---------------------------------
They want people to design games where the "average" consumer is always maintaining around 75fps @ 1080P as of "now".
As an example Volnaiskra has 2xTitans and often says he has trouble maintaining constand 120FPS. With 3D vision + scaling thats like 110-90FPS[2D] depending on game.
They aren't going to even expcet the average user to have half that rig.
I do think that people expecting the "future of gaming" will be surprised when they see the "games of yesteryear."
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com
Anyways, looking forward for dk2.0 big time!!!
The issue with "mobile" is where do you draw the line? Are we talking phone/tablet or ultrabook here? I agree with Eqzitara that they are likely not going to wait for the true mobile stuff to catch up.
I think Birthright has a good point. There's a treasure trove of older titles that are fun to play that if re-released optimized for the rift might create a whole new experience. Even my 'Quake1/Doom1' examples were 'cutting edge' at the time of release and a recent jaunt in Quake3 in 3D did not look 1/2 bad. Even "The Sims" looks better in 3D on my underpowered 3D laptop than it does in 2D.
I guess my "worry" is that if they "settle" for a underpowered target they'll gimp the hardware (and software) so that those that have the CPU+GPU's to drive better experiences won't be able to.
(granted, the worry is mostly unfounded as while many modern games can be ran on GTX8000 series there's almost always plenty of "eye candy" offered for higher powered rigs).
i7-2600K-4.5Ghz/Corsair H100i/8GB/GTX780SC-SLI/Win7-64/1200W-PSU/Samsung 840-500GB SSD/Coolermaster-Tower/Benq 1080ST @ 100"
Just based off anecdotal evidence really. We've seen threads on basically all internet forums where people with Dev kit 1s, even if they felt horrendous, would stick with it. And they'd tell other people to. Telling them that if you increase exposure more and more each day, you'll get your sea legs and it'll stop making you get simulator sickness.
There were documented instances where a couple people even threw up the first time they used the Rift.
My second paragraph is basically talking about how you need high end tech to combat simulator sickness. And if you want the casual market, you can't have a 20 step process of gradually increasing exposure until the point you no longer get simulator sickness. The process has to consist of this:
Step 1.) Put on Rift.
Step 2.) Enjoy.
Abrash going to Oculus as well is definitely another reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I certainly hope it all works out.
I'm always concerned though when I see weasels taking charge. Here are the weasel words from the Kickstarter update:
At first glance, it might not seem obvious why Oculus is partnering with Facebook, a company focused on connecting people, investing in internet access for the world and pushing an open computing platform. But when you consider it more carefully, we’re culturally aligned with a focus on innovating and hiring the best and brightest; we believe communication drives new platforms; we want to contribute to a more open, connected world; and we both see virtual reality as the next step.
No one normal talks that way. "But when you consider it more carefully.." "best and the brightest"
Please!
This is straight up PR weasel speak and it's worrisome. I've been at lots of tech companies where the best engineers were thwarted at every step by weasels.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
And as far as I know, almost all PR people are taught to talk like that (and probably for good reason: when you don't actually SAY anything, it's hard to get your company into trouble). With a million tweeters and internet trolls ready to pounce on my every word and quote me out of context, I'd probably speak like that too :D
With the VC money, it was always ending in sale to a mega-corporation. It's also the only way you could pull off VR with high quality components. My nightmare has long been waking to the news MS purchased them.
I guess I'm just more pragmatic than most. If people were just taking out their smile and didn't really believe this was good, I highly doubt we'd keep seeing the Valve VR hardware guys constantly defecting over to Oculus.
http://gawker.com/heres-how-facebook-could-completely-ruin-the-oculus-ri-1555440838
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers