Support NeoGAF

[Tagyhag]

VR is not AR.

AR is Google Glass or 3D/Vita/Smartphone demos, only MS wants to provide real world object tracking and placing of computer generated objects in our view [in addition to static Bing-powered HUD stats].

Indeed, but head-borne computers makes me believe they are going the way of VR eventually. They might wait to see if the public takes it all in, but they'll be ready for it.

 

[mrklaw]

Even for non movement related interactions like hands manipulation, or kicking some thing in the virtual world?

might just about be ok. Obviously not ideal due to lag, and way too slow for positional movement. Seeing your hands in front of you a bit laggy would be weird but might be ok.

 

[Ol No Bones]

I doubt MS and the X1 will be able to achieve this, but using AR to fill the real world with bad guys/characters is more exciting then VR, because AR could be used outside and have multiple people participate.

AR isn't more exciting for games. It is very exciting tech for other reasons.

 

[Jomjom]

Not excited about AR for games at all. AR has produced nothing good on the 3DS or Vita. Simply making it wearable isn't going to change that.

Maybe MS will do some kind of AR snap for things like browsing or whatnot, like Google Glass.

 

[mrklaw]

Indeed, but head-borne computers makes me believe they are going the way of VR eventually. They might wait to see if the public takes it all in, but they'll be ready for it.

they're fundamentally different though. AR assumes you want to add information to the real world. VR relies on you being in a virtual world. Both have their places but I don't see them being particularly complimentary - they each have quite separate use cases, and specific technical challenges - AR more around sensing the environment and accurately mapping it so you can overlay information; VR more on how you move in a virtual space and also the sheer power needed to render an entire virtual world

 

[Handy Fake]

I doubt MS and the X1 will be able to achieve this, but using AR to fill the real world with bad guys/characters is more exciting then VR, because AR could be used outside and have multiple people participate.

I feel daft enough talking to my PS4 in the privacy of my own room, man.

 

[BigBearJohnson]

might just about be ok. Obviously not ideal due to lag, and way too slow for positional movement. Seeing your hands in front of you a bit laggy would be weird but might be ok.

With kinect 1 maybe, but I'm surprised by how responsive kinect 2 is. It could realistically handle someone movement in a digital space. Even sees fingers pretty accurately if Peggie 2 is any indication.

 

[flyinpiranha]

What? No!
VR requires a screen in front of you eyes. It requires that you don't see and hear anything from the actual reality and only see and hear the virtual reality.

Augmented reality is just stuff projected into your vision. You see the actual environment that you're in while using Augmented reality.

You're misunderstanding, I'm saying 'eventually'. I know the difference. I do. But all you need is a webcam to make any VR into AR (simply speaking).

I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying that the devices used to create either experience are very similar that eventually they will most likely coincide.

 

[Alx]

We've known about MS working on VR/AR glasses for years... Fortezela glasses anyone?

True, but that's still a rumor (although a well documented one ).
But everything points to a confirmation soon, it makes me think of when MS bought 3DV and Canesta (depth camera companies) shortly before announcing kinect. I hope we'll have an exciting E3.

Not excited about AR for games at all. AR has produced nothing good on the 3DS or Vita. Simply making it wearable isn't going to change that.

Apparently people love the Playroom, though, even if it's basically a demo. No, I don't get it either.

 

[Foxix Von]

for games, I agree. But for real world applications it could be very useful.

Imagine something like google glass, but with the ability to overlay information across the entire lens area. Combine with gyro/compass so it knows where you are looking. So now if you want to know where the nearest bus station is, or coffee shop, you can just look and walk towards it. It could overlay routes on the ground in front of you and (of course) overlay targetted ads on billboards or shop windows.

But how do you devise a user interface that doesn't require talking to yourself, flailing your hands around in public or just using your smartphone as a remote? I think those applications are a wonderful idea in theory but how do you make something like that useable to the point where I wouldn't just use the phone in my pocket?

Not to mention the amount of people that just hate wearing glasses in general, I don't see how this can ever be lucrative outside a very narrow niche or some military contract. There are too many inconveniences.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

The most obvious use is putting Master Chief's HUD on the glasses.

 

[Jomjom]

With kinect 1 maybe, but I'm surprised by how responsive kinect 2 is. It could realistically handle someone movement in a digital space. Even sees fingers pretty accurately if Peggie 2 is any indication.

Has nothing to do with responsiveness for VR. The camera's refresh rate is just not good enough for VR. They'll never do VR with a 30hz camera. If MS does VR it'll either have to bundle another camera with it or wait until Kinect 3 on Xbox Two.

Apparently people love the Playroom, though, even if it's basically a demo. No, I don't get it either.

Pretty certain nobody's going back to Playroom day after day to play. Everyone I know thought the Jimmy Fallon demo was cute, got the camera, tried it a bit for the laughs and stopped playing it. The only people consistently using it is just to stream their drunken/high selves doing stupid shit on Ustream. In that case, I think they'd rather not have the AR, because you always have to have the one dumb robot blocking a part of your stream.

 

[mrklaw]

But how do you devise a user interface that doesn't require talking to yourself, flailing your hands around in public or just using your smartphone as a remote? I think those applications are a wonderful idea in theory but how do you make something like that useable to the point where I wouldn't just use the phone in my pocket?

Not to mention the amount of people that just hate wearing glasses in general, I don't see how this can ever be lucrative outside a very narrow niche or some military contract. There are too many inconveniences.

it'd be a wearable, so you'd use your phone and/or voice control to set things up. But looking at things like google now, eventually it'd learn enough that you wouldn't need to do much 'driving' of it, it'd just work.

I don't think this is limited to just pedestrians either. I'd love a heads up display in a car where the actual junction you need to take is highlighted, rather than having to translate between what the satnav shows you and the real world environment.

 

[Soi-Fong]

No surprise, VR is the future. Everyone is going to take notice.

There's a big difference in VR and AR. People need to understand the difference.

 

[Guevara]

The most obvious use is putting Master Chief's HUD on the glasses.

But how is this better? It would be "neat" for a few minutes, but would it really improve the game?

 

[NullPointer]

Augmented reality has a much farther way to go in being viable as a platform outside of tech demos (or tech demoes stretched out into full games) than VR.

True, but I see it being more mainstream viable long term.

VR is amazing (and I'd use it for gaming or telepresence), but its still a head mounted sensory deprivation/replacement tank. AR, projection, holography is more social and shares a real space. AR doesn't disconnect you from the world, it accentuates and vivifies it. Its more, for lack of a better word, human.

 

[DJSebolski]

I actually like Microsoft Illumiroom alot better than VR headsets.
Is it still coming out?

http://youtu.be/aoUGRGjG07E

 

[SPDIF]

when you can't create/innovate yourself, this is what you do. the worst thing to happen to gaming ever = Microsoft. just think if they put that money they just used and what they use to pay other companies to make games for them....into first party games....smh

Got shit products? Want to remain competitive?

Buy patents.

Hilarious.

I guess this makes sense for MS. They are incapable of producing a product which consumers want. So they license out patented technology instead and leech off the innovation and profits of other companies like a vampire or a parasite. This is how they make their real money in mobile. They make more money from patent trolling the Android device manufacturers than they do from Windows Phone.

That's a strange way to look at it. MS didn't seem the least bit interested in AR until after Google unveiled Google Glass. They won't be interested in VR until after Oculus Rift or Project Morpheus become consumer products.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Alcotholic]

Wasn't there something about Kinect being able to project visuals in your whole room or something?

 

[Nafai1123]

But how do you devise a user interface that doesn't require talking to yourself, flailing your hands around in public or just using your smartphone as a remote? I think those applications are a wonderful idea in theory but how do you make something like that useable to the point where I wouldn't just use the phone in my pocket?

Not to mention the amount of people that just hate wearing glasses in general, I don't see how this can ever be lucrative outside a very narrow niche or some military contract. There are too many inconveniences.

In general I agree. We've already seen some of the negative response to Google glass and I think there will generally be a negative stigma surrounding AR glasses until a company can either make it imperceptible from regular glasses, or put them into contact lenses. Even then, I think the market that is willing to wear glasses everywhere they go (even if they don't need them), or put in contacts JUST for AR, is going to be small for the foreseeable future.

Edit: That said, those (like myself) who already wear glasses would probably be much more interested in the idea, as long as the glasses didn't look out of the ordinary.

 

[jcm]

That's a strange way to look at it. MS didn't seem the least bit interested in AR until after Google unveiled Google Glass.

That's not true. MS has been working on AR for a while. Google announced Project Glass in April 2012. MS was filing for AR patents at least as early as May 2011.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

But how is this better? It would be "neat" for a few minutes, but would it really improve the game?

Didn't say it was or that it would be better.

 

[DJSebolski]

Wasn't there something about Kinect being able to project visuals in your whole room or something?

Microsoft Illumiroom > VR

http://youtu.be/aoUGRGjG07E

 

[SPDIF]

I actually like Microsoft Illumiroom alot better than VR headsets.
Is it still coming out?

http://youtu.be/aoUGRGjG07E

Too expensive it its current form. Some of the ideas from Illumiroom may be possible with Fortaleza though.

 

[Chobel]

Microsoft Illumiroom > VR

http://youtu.be/aoUGRGjG07E

lol

 

[Ahasverus]

This will be the new motion control. Gimmick and fade and all. Mark my words.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's not true. MS has been working on AR for a while. Google announced Project Glass in April 2012. MS was filing for AR patents at least as early as May 2011.

That's interesting. Let's try comparing apples to apples. So when did Google file their first AR related patent?

 

[DieH@rd]

Kinect + VR would make me buy a Bone.

Good luck with motion tracking using 30fps camera.

 

[ironcreed]

True, but I see it being more mainstream viable long term.

VR is amazing (and I'd use it for gaming or telepresence), but its still a head mounted sensory deprivation/replacement tank. AR, projection, holography is more social and shares a real space. AR doesn't disconnect you from the world, it accentuates and vivifies it. Its more, for lack of a better word, human.

In other words, more of a Minority Report sort of thing. Which would be quite nice.

 

[Anion]

This is unlikely considering MS's history. They are not an innovator company. They only start developing something when they see someone else doing it and realize they need to be there too.

Balmer.

 

[Foxix Von]

it'd be a wearable, so you'd use your phone and/or voice control to set things up. But looking at things like google now, eventually it'd learn enough that you wouldn't need to do much 'driving' of it, it'd just work.

I don't think this is limited to just pedestrians either. I'd love a heads up display in a car where the actual junction you need to take is highlighted, rather than having to translate between what the satnav shows you and the real world environment.

Like I said, I'm probably just short sighted. Still it's going to be a long, long way until the technology develops to the point where absolutely minimal or zero "driving" is required. It's only then that I think you have a sliver of hope for it to take off in popularity for pedestrian application. An expensive companion device to an already expensive companion device seems like it would be incredibly difficult to sell.

I think you're right in the usage of vehicle or personal transport though. There's a lot potetional there so long as it's convenient and as out of the way as possible so as to no not occlude a person's view of the road. Downside is cost of replacing a new windshield and hoping that something like rock chips don't destroy functionality.

 

[Jomjom]

Microsoft Illumiroom > VR

http://youtu.be/aoUGRGjG07E

Maybe if I want to watch Disney's world of color at home. This is nowhere near the immersion of VR.

I love World of Color though. Someone needs to get to work on this.

 

[Y2Kev]

No surprise, VR is the future. Everyone is going to take notice.

Vaugmented Reality

 

[MDX]

No surprise, VR is the future. Everyone is going to take notice.

Not if they have their VR strapped to their heads

 

[DieH@rd]

Vaugmented Reality

Vaginated Reality, made exclusively by Japanese devs.

 

[Desty]

Microsoft version of Google Glass incoming.

 

[DJSebolski]

Good luck wearing that thing on your head for extended period of time. Schedule your eye exam ahead of time cause you will need it.

 

[BigBearJohnson]

Good luck with motion tracking using 30fps camera.

I don't understand that. The kinect already handles motion tracking fine. Have you guys played kinect sports rivals preseason? The jet ski guy tracks really well. Project spark handles motion capture really good as well. Why are you saying it isn't possible when it's already doing it?

 

[Foxix Von]

Vaugmented Reality

You are truly a visionary without equal.

 

[Chobel]

Good luck wearing that thing on your head for extended period of time. Schedule your eye exam ahead of time cause you will need it.

You're trying too hard man, lol.

 

[Prince Vultan]

In other words, more of a Minority Report sort of thing. Which would be quite nice.

lmao

It's like 2010 all over again.

 

[Nafai1123]

I don't understand that. The kinect already handles motion tracking fine. Have you guys played kinect sports rivals preseason? The jet ski guy tracks really well. Project spark handles motion capture really good as well. Why are you saying it isn't possible when it's already doing it?

Positional head tracking requires lower latency than the 30hz Kinect can provide.

 

[DJSebolski]

You're trying too hard man, lol.

Trying too hard? Pffft oh ok.

 

[Alx]

That's interesting. Let's try comparing apples to apples. So when did Google file their first AR related patent?

Microsoft has that big MS Research team that has been working on many topics for years, and AR among them. I'm sure there are publications that predate the birth of Google.
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/...blications&sf=&s=augmented+reality&r=&vr=&ra=

 

[MaulerX]

Good luck wearing that thing on your head for extended period of time. Schedule your eye exam ahead of time cause you will need it.

What exactly are you referring to? VR or AR?

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Well, that sounds like a complete waste of money. Though I have to say it would be funny if they were betting on the future of AR while all of the VR stuff was going on. Unless there's something cool about AR that we've never seen before, I don't see how it could possibly compare. AR has traditionally kind of sucked monkey dick.

 

[ricardokenshin]

Wow i remember watching that illumiroom thing and wanting it sooo bad. Too bad it never came to pass.

 

[ironcreed]

lmao

It's like 2010 all over again.

I'm not saying that it will be definitively like that. Hell, I don't know. All I am saying is that it could be similar for certain things. Which would be incredibly neat if it even came close.

 

[Jomjom]

Trying too hard? Pffft oh ok.

Yeah you really are. Im assuming you've done O research on the effect VR has on human eyes. To make that claim is premature to say the least.

 

[Sponge]

Watch Rare become Microsoft's guinea pig for VR similar to how they were for Kinect.