Support NeoGAF

[kyser73]

Well I don't need to rehash the whole discussion, but she initially said this regarding an underwater VR demo she played on the Rift:



Everyone responds to that with "Oh huh, cool" while I'm thinking what idea is she trying to convey? Couple second later she follows it up with:



To which everyone has a similar "Totally, yeah" reaction. I felt like I was taking crazy pills because I'm still not able to figure out what she is trying to say and why it's a "good" thing.

This diatribe is blowing my reaction out of proportion, but it's just the one example of the generally confused way Giant Bomb discusses VR stuff. I haven't finished this week's episode though, so I can't speak to what they say, but it was always a stark contrast to listen to the Bombcast and Tested podcast back-to-back and hear just how informed and in-depth the VR conversations are on Tested.

Yup, lost me too.

At first I thought she might be referring to FoV.

Then maybe talking about the 'lack of body' thing.

I'm leaning toward the second option, if only because there is no issue with looking up or down, or backwards by turning your head.

 

[Sleeping Lesson]

Well, like I said, don't even know what she was playing, but it sounds like for some reason she couldn't turn 360°, so she thought it was cool that the dev designed the experience in such a way that she wasn't inclined to do so anyway.

Also, spinning 360° isn't really the primary purpose of VR. The primary purpose is making you feel like you're present in the virtual environment.

Just listen to the segment, it's around the 39 minute mark in last week's Bombcast. She's talking about the game Narcosis. It's nonsense. Limiting your field of view and disallowing the player to turn around do not solve any problems inherent to VR nor in Narcosis. You could argue that it's an artistic choice to make the player feel enclosed or even claustrophobic, but that is not at all what she said. She says the game addresses "the way the Oculus [sic] is", which does not make a lick of sense.

Yup, lost me too.

At first I thought she might be referring to FoV.

Then maybe talking about the 'lack of body' thing.

I'm leaning toward the second option, if only because there is no issue with looking up or down, or backwards by turning your head.

Yes, exactly. It's not a matter of missing some key element of the conversation, what she's saying just makes no sense.

 

[fred]

Well I'll just copy and paste what I posted in the Oculus forum a while ago:

I'm leaning towards getting an Oculus Rift over a HTC Vive, although if HTC announce at the CES something that's going to bring their price down I may get tempted to get the Vive instead. The Oculus Rift has several advantages over the HTC Vive for me personally:

1) The HTC Vive appears as though it's going to be more expensive.

2) I prefer the look of the Touch controllers to the Vive controllers (do they even have a name..?).

3) I only have around 2m width and 3m length for the 'room scale' stuff.

4) Blink/Teleportation stuff only makes sense in a game if it's a sci-fi or fantasy style game.

5) Developers have had Rift devkits for twice the amount of time that they've had Vive devkits so there's going to be more Rift games available at launch.

6) The Rift has more exclusives so far

Price is going to be a BIG deciding factor for me though. If HTC's 'secret sauce' is going to be something that brings the price down then I may go for Vive but as things stand at the moment it's the Rift for me so far.

PSVR is out because I don't own a PS4. I'd have to buy a PS4, the PSVR stuff and a yearly tax to play online. Sony also cocked up the design of the Move controllers last generation - they should have added an analog stick to the thing. I'm also a bit concerned by the lag seen at that clusterfuck VR demo that they did on stage a few weeks back, although perhaps that was the fault of the demo being shite, like I said it was a clusterfuck lol

So Oculus Rift for me unless HTC manage to get the price down.

 

[Compsiox]

Well I'll just copy and paste what I posted in the Oculus forum a while ago:



PSVR is out because I don't own a PS4. I'd have to buy a PS4, the PSVR stuff and a yearly tax to play online. Sony also cocked up the design of the Move controllers last generation - they should have added an analog stick to the thing. I'm also a bit concerned by the lag seen at that clusterfuck VR demo that they did on stage a few weeks back, although perhaps that was the fault of the demo being shite, like I said it was a clusterfuck lol

So Oculus Rift for me unless HTC manage to get the price down.

It's a shame that the Look of the controllers would be a factor. You should only be thinking about the tech at the moment tbh.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Palmer Luckey just made a series of tweets that basically says VR is gonna be expensive for a while, it's only for early adopters.

Reminder of something I have talked about before: VR will become something everyone wants before it becomes something everyone can afford.

Future advancements and high volume will make VR available to everyone eventually, but 1st gen will be mostly early adopters.

Extreme means, like selling at-cost to ensure maximum market growth, are not enough to align cost and desired price.

Multiple custom VR panels, high end optics, and an endless list of specialized hardware and manufacturing techniques add up.

The cost of development hardware that was sold at a loss using many off-the-shelf components is not a good comparison.

It is no coincidence that Oculus will lead this reality check the same way we led this VR revolution - 1st to market is hard.

There are a lot of people who expect to spend a couple hundred bucks and use their existing low end laptops.

We are taking some big steps to make sure people know what they are getting into - we don't want to sell to people who don't

Sounds like he's trying to soften the blow of a higher-than-expected price tag.

 

[NoKisum]

I'm still trying to figure out which one will actually fit on my head.

 

[Zaptruder]

Palmer Luckey just made a series of tweets that basically says VR is gonna be expensive for a while, it's only for early adopters.



Sounds like he's trying to soften the blow of a higher-than-expected price tag.

I'm predicting 400-450 for the HMD and 100-150 for the controllers.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

Certainly hope it isn't $650 like that one "insider" mentioned in a post not too earlier from when Palmer's tweets went out. Maybe for a bundle with touch to be delivered later...

Gonna hope for 400 for hmd alone.

 

[kyser73]

Just listen to the segment, it's around the 39 minute mark in last week's Bombcast. She's talking about the game Narcosis. It's nonsense. Limiting your field of view and disallowing the player to turn around do not solve any problems inherent to VR nor in Narcosis. You could argue that it's an artistic choice to make the player feel enclosed or even claustrophobic, but that is not at all what she said. She says the game addresses "the way the Oculus [sic] is", which does not make a lick of sense.



Yes, exactly. It's not a matter of missing some key element of the conversation, what she's saying just makes no sense.

The only other thing it could be is that she's referring to eye-tracking.

 

[dodgykebaab]

PSVR is the only option I can see being viable.

Rift and HTC are locked to PC, which limits what it can do because you need a high end gaming rig and serious cash. So it'll be limited the small PC high end gaming market. And trust me, it's much smaller than a lot of people here think it is.

PSVR is going to be the mainstream device, with more users. So the games made for VR will be made with PSVR in mind, just like normal games are made with current gen consoles in mind.

Sure you'll see some crazy stuff only on PC, but as we've seen with indie games, Sony brings over all the good stuff so you don't really miss out in PS.

The AAA studios will want to sell serious amounts to justify the dev costs, so they'll have to release on the largest platform, which will be PSVR.

 

[bj00rn_]

Rift and HTC are locked to PC, which limits what it can do

This thread is amazing in what weird logic it can produce just to fit a personal agenda.

"locked to PC", lol

 

[dodgykebaab]

This thread is amazing in what weird logic it can produce just to fit a personal agenda.

"locked to PC", lol

I'm sorry, I didn't know Rift and HTC worked on PS4, Apple devices, Android devices and Xbox One.

 

[Caayn]

I'm sorry, I didn't know Rift and HTC worked on PS4, Apple devices, Android devices and Xbox One.

Ahem

And since Rift and Vive are open platforms it's only a matter of time before the community gets it working on Android devices as well.

PSVR so far is the only VR device that's actually locked to one device without a means to undo that lock due to the closed nature of the device.

 

[bounchfx]

don't let anything in this thread persuade you one way or the other, it's way too early to be making judgement when there's so much information we still don't have.

but VR in general is gonna be DOPE son WHAAAAAAAAT

 

[dodgykebaab]

Ahem

No, that's still working on PC still. The Xbox streams to the PC. I'd hardly call that setup Rift working on Xbox One. Rift on Xbox One is implying that Rift plugs into the Xbox One. It does not.

 

[xxracerxx]

Ahem
.

That isn't running on an XBO though. So not sure why the ahem.

 

[kyser73]

This thread is amazing in what weird logic it can produce just to fit a personal agenda.

"locked to PC", lol

Won't work on Macs.

Won't work on Android devices, tablets etc.

Won't work with on consoles.

Won't even work with high performance gaming laptops (Luckey has said this).

Will work with top-of-middle to high-end desktop PC running Windows - unless they're launching with Linux support.

So its restricted to one OS and a minimum build spec.

Locked is probably the wrong word, but it's still pretty closed off to most PC owners.

 

[TerryLee81]

I'm worried how the PS4 games will look with the weak hardware, and you apparently need a very high stable framerate.

On PC the games will probably look great, but this comes at a price. If you have to buy the headset for $400 and a new GPU for $800, yeah that's a LOT of money.

 

[EatChildren]

Whichever hardware is most impressive and compatible with my PC. PSVR looks ace but I don't find limited closed hardware devices appealing.

 

[mechphree]

I just don't think Oculus will be able to capture the mainstream market with VR like Sony could.

I feel like Oculus will be regulated to a super niche PC market but other then that it won't go that far.

Sony appears to be alot more viable, considering they can sell their headset for what appears to be alot cheaper then the competition with little to no set up at all.

I feel like the "VR" war will be won by the product that has the loudest consumers who can evangelize it to their friends and family. Sony already has a one-up with at least initial market-share with the 30+ million PS4'S floating around.

 

[ArtHands]

I'm sorry, I didn't know Rift and HTC worked on PS4, Apple devices, Android devices and Xbox One.

You do know you can say the same for PS VR too. Doesn't work on PC, android devices, xbox one, Apple devices.

 

[panda-zebra]

I'm worried how the PS4 games will look with the weak hardware, and you apparently need a very high stable framerate.

On PC the games will probably look great, but this comes at a price. If you have to buy the headset for $400 and a new GPU for $800, yeah that's a LOT of money.

Concern that isn't borne out by those who place it on their heads and experience the games and demos so far. There's a lot to be said for a closed system where you're able to know exactly what is happening every 8ms, for every single user.

 

[kyser73]

Suddenly IDC's prediction that Andrew House quoted of the total Year 1 market between the 3 main headsets being around 2.6m isn't quite so low...

 

[bj00rn_]

I'm sorry, I didn't know Rift and HTC worked on PS4, Apple devices, Android devices and Xbox One.

I just find the rhetoric to twist facts to fit subjective personal opinions fascinating, that's all.

PC is a 100% open platform, the Rift and the Vive is also on open frameworks, thus there's nothing "locked to PC" about it. End of story. If the PS4 was an open platform you could even make the Rift and the Vive work on it. The meta-arguments being dragged in afterwards to row it away is frankly just annoying.

 

[Wheatly]

I'm inclined to go with PSVR since Sony has some of their 1st party studios (and 3rd party) working on games for it.

and well... oculus does not. Without that cash flow, it we will probably only see crap for a very long time

 

[Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule]

supporting psvr is like support ps move all over again, so no thanks. Gimme something PC compatible in 2020

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

With RIGS and Ace Combat my choice is clear.

Same here. But for those games as well as the fact that PS VR looks like the best hardware too (design and aesthetics are definitely the best)

 

[Slay]

I'm worried how the PS4 games will look with the weak hardware, and you apparently need a very high stable framerate.

That's why Sony is using reprojection in order to double the frame rate. Psvr games can have a 60fps target and the hardware will double it at 120. They can get as low as 45, and still match the 90 target of both oculus and vive.

 

[viveks86]

That's why Sony is using reprojection in order to double the frame rate. Psvr games can have a 60fps target and the hardware will double it at 120. They can get as low as 45, and still match the 90 target of both oculus and vive.

No they can't. 60 fps is the lowest they can go with reprojection. Even that is the bare minimum and not the recommended approach to avoid artifacts and discomfort

 

[Alienfan]

So far only Samsung have any chance of convincing the mainstream consumer, simply due to the price. If they could get a solution working for all smart phones, they are almost guaranteed to make a bigger dent than the niche markets Sony and so far oculus are appealing to. For me personally I'll be waiting for the second or third consumer iteration of these devices

 

[cheezcake]

That's why Sony is using reprojection in order to double the frame rate. Psvr games can have a 60fps target and the hardware will double it at 120. They can get as low as 45, and still match the 90 target of both oculus and vive.

120fps with reprojection is not equivalent to 120fps native. AFAIK reprojection is a way to account for head movements which occur inbetween individual frames are rendered. It's a great way to reduce nausea and improve realism in VR when you can't render the scene at the same rate you want to account for head tracking, but it's still not the same as having your entire scene render natively at that framerate.

Good video for explaining the tech, the tech has also existed in the Oculus SDK for a while and I assume the Vive will have something similar, or regardless openVR will get an implementation in their SDK. Blog post on the Oculus website talking about the tech, when it's good and what limitations it has.

 

[ashecitism]

I'm inclined to go with PSVR since Sony has some of their 1st party studios (and 3rd party) working on games for it.

and well... oculus does not. Without that cash flow, it we will probably only see crap for a very long time

Oculus has several 3rd party exclusives in the works and they also have a dev team, which have yet to announce their projects. People should rather point their fingers towards the Vive regarding this.

 

[Zaptruder]

120fps with reprojection is not equivalent to 120fps native. AFAIK reprojection is a way to account for head movements which occur inbetween individual frames are rendered. It's a great way to reduce nausea and improve realism in VR when you can't render the scene at the same rate you want to account for head tracking, but it's still not the same as having your entire scene render natively at that framerate.

Good video for explaining the tech, the tech has also existed in the Oculus SDK for a while and I assume the Vive will have something similar, or regardless openVR will get an implementation in their SDK. Blog post on the Oculus website talking about the tech, when it's good and what limitations it has.

Reprojection has this fun way of making it look like elements in the world are moving at a lower frame rate than the actual motion of the world itself.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

Palmer Luckey just made a series of tweets that basically says VR is gonna be expensive for a while, it's only for early adopters.



Sounds like he's trying to soften the blow of a higher-than-expected price tag.

I'm predicting 400-450 for the HMD and 100-150 for the controllers.

Certainly hope it isn't $650 like that one "insider" mentioned in a post not too earlier from when Palmer's tweets went out. Maybe for a bundle with touch to be delivered later...

Gonna hope for 400 for hmd alone.

The other important point here is that you'll need a high end PC for this. Don't expect to plug this into a couple year old laptop and have it work.

I'm interested in this tech but first thing on my list is upgrading my PC. I'm currently running on year 3 of an Asus laptop. It doesn't meet specs for many of the new games these days, let alone VR.

The good news is, by the time I save up enough to get into VR, we should hopefully be in the 2nd gen and see the prices coming down due to competition (and the tech improving). In the meantime, if I get desperate, I'll jump in with GearVR.

 

[Skulduggery]

Dudes some people are expecting $600 for the initial Rift. That's with 1 camera and no controllers. That's tough to swallow.

Also making me sweat a bit wondering how much the Vive will cost with its superior features and complete package...

 

[serversurfer]

Just listen to the segment, it's around the 39 minute mark in last week's Bombcast. She's talking about the game Narcosis. It's nonsense. Limiting your field of view and disallowing the player to turn around do not solve any problems inherent to VR nor in Narcosis. You could argue that it's an artistic choice to make the player feel enclosed or even claustrophobic, but that is not at all what she said. She says the game addresses "the way the Oculus [sic] is", which does not make a lick of sense.

Yeah, she wasn't clear on what was limiting her RL movement, but she seemed fairly sure it was limited to 180º. Maybe she was sitting down, and she assumes that's a limitation of the Rift, since all they ever say about moving around is, "We're focused on a seated experience right now"? Obviously, standing and turning fully around is an option with the Rift, but Oculus themselves avoid talking about that, while HTC and Valve are really playing up the freedom of movement aspect. So it's not surprising if some have the impression that, "You gotta sit down with Rift though."

 

[Sleeping Lesson]

Yeah, she wasn't clear on what was limiting her RL movement, but she seemed fairly sure it was limited to 180º. Maybe she was sitting down, and she assumes that's a limitation of the Rift, since all they ever say about moving around is, "We're focused on a seated experience right now"? Obviously, standing and turning fully around is an option with the Rift, but Oculus themselves avoid talking about that, while HTC and Valve are really playing up the freedom of movement aspect. So it's not surprising if some have the impression that, "You gotta sit down with Rift though."

That seems like a totally reasonable and possibly accurate explanation.

And it also wraps around to my original point, which was that Giant Bomb is not the place to go for up-to-date and accurate information about VR. Worth noting that Mary is not a member of Giant Bomb, though.

Anyway, I didn't mean to dissect that segment (again) to such a degree.

 

[Woodchipper]

PlayStation VR looks more and more promising, and I've gone from not so interested and quite sceptical, to very excited!

 

[rickyson1]

I don't really know much about the different ones but i'm leaning RIft over Vive because I want to use it for more than just games and I feel like the Rift will probably have a lot more non game stuff available for it what with facebook owning it and all

is that correct?

 

[Sleeping Lesson]

I don't really know much about the different ones but i'm leaning RIft over Vive because I want to use it for more than just games and I feel like the Rift will probably have a lot more non game stuff available for it what with facebook owning it and all

is that correct?

I think that's a reasonable expectation. Oculus has indicated that they are actively working on non-game applications. Similar things might come to Vive, but HTC/Valve have seemed much more game-focused thus far.

 

[deoee]

With Oculus having PreOrders starting today, who will bite?

Depending on the shipping date I think I will.

 

[PodcastFips]

Go to hardware will either be Gear VR for low budget, or PS VR due to the large potential userbase and probably a cheaper price than Vive and OR.