-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Microsoft bought 'Minecraft' because it's perfect for HoloLens
- Thread starter BeforeU
- Start date
I don't really see it improving productivity in any way above using just a large monitor or dual monitors tbh.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
lol watch the demo and usage they showed for Architect, Doctors and teaching purpose.
No. It projects images on the inside of the lens of the glasses.
Maybe you're confusing it with the 'Illumiroom' concept
It depends what you are using it for. If you are an architect or Space researcher, visualization of your environment with the ability to manipulate it and collaborate with others is a game-changer.
For others, like students, it could help visualize things like human anatomy, 3D models, or geographic locations.
You can only achieve so much understanding looking at a 2D screen.
I know the idea of using HoloLens to watch a movie on a wall seems great, but the technological resolution constraints of the screens must mean that its more a novelty than something that can mirror say the use of a real world projector being viewed directly?
For example, playing a 1080p movie output, skewing it through hardware\software so that it gives the impression of being stuck on a wall and then displaying that on a screen in HoloLens whilst only taking up a proportion of the total FOV must mean that the picture will immediately be reduced in quality and thus not be viewed in HoloLens at 1080p?
I should add that no one has said it would, I'm merely speculating that I'd rather watch a movie on a real TV rather than an scaled version in a headset.
For example, playing a 1080p movie output, skewing it through hardware\software so that it gives the impression of being stuck on a wall and then displaying that on a screen in HoloLens whilst only taking up a proportion of the total FOV must mean that the picture will immediately be reduced in quality and thus not be viewed in HoloLens at 1080p?
I should add that no one has said it would, I'm merely speculating that I'd rather watch a movie on a real TV rather than an scaled version in a headset.
FollowTheWind
Banned
It doesn't have to matter at this current state and time, these are long term technologies, which will need to go through years of development before it can be easily integrated into every day life, and boy am I excited. This stuff reminds me exactly of stark tech.
Thats why its bad to bash Kinect each time, or any new tech. Because after years and years it will shape up, go under more R&D, more money etc... And then it will become useful.
Imagine this in combination with the kinect :O
Isn't there already prototypes of AR technology for soldiers and firefighters?
Also I believe HoloLens is partly a result of Microsoft's acquisition of ODG's Wearable Computing IP.
TheExecutive
Member
They bought minecraft because it prints money like others have said. Despite what this article may say that's why they bought it and secondarily they thought that it would be cool with hololens.
Chiaroscuro
Member
Wait until the Japanese developers deliver the fist waifu application...
The Jackdog
Member
I think the tech is awesome and could really take off....at a reasonable price....
Neuromancer
Member
The author of the original NY Times article wrote:
The Engadget title makes it sound like it was the only reason, in their usual dumb clickbait way.
The Engadget title makes it sound like it was the only reason, in their usual dumb clickbait way.
No, hololens is actually practical.
i can't see what the lens are bringing on this demo. Kinect could do the same no ?
First of all, a 2d screen can achieve 3d visuals, and you can move around in a 3d environment within a 2d monitor. This can be done today, you see it in games, architects already have 3d showrooms, and is not uncommon. I can guarantee you that whatever interface Microsoft comes up with will not be more efficient than a mouse or stylus, which again, is already in use today. I would also like to mention that despite the availability of 3D visuals, the vast majority of classes simply do not employ them.
What hololens achieves is not 3d visualization, as 3d visualization can be achieved effectively in a 2d screen. Its primary innovation is depth perception that moves with you. It does not give you immersion like VR, it simply overlays visuals in a subset of your vision. Depth perception is not unique to hololens, as you can do that with 3d glasses already.
Its only advantage it seems to me is that the overlayed visuals can move with you. That to me is an incredibly niche set of advantages. I am just not so convinced. Not just yet.
Americanmushroom
Banned
Hololens is the next Kinect
The Jackdog
Member
I still dont think you can price it at more than 6-700 and expect a lot of people to hop on board.
Hell, even thats high
The Jackdog
Member
The headset is overlaying the image on the wall, for the audience there is nothing to see but a blank wall lol. They had a special camera rig tied into the demo unit to display what the presenter was seeing but from the camera's POV.
Microsoft didn't need to buy Minecraft to do that, they could have just knocked out a simple clone for a fraction of the cost. In terms of Hololens, what they bought with Minecraft is the brand, the household name to use as a friendly and familiar coating over some of the stuff they're planning with Hololens. Selling copies of Minecraft aside, they bought the Minecraft playerbase as potential consumers for their various pies.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
It depends if you were to essentially turn it into smart phone, with a large app library for all kinds of mundane shit, I can certainly the advantages, the biggest issues being form factor and software.
I wouldn't call It high this is some full blow sci fi shit, if you can imagine this being able to replicate what any smart device does with the bonus of overlaying it onto anywhere real life as advantages, I wouldn't exactly say $6-700 is too much if done well. People shell that amount over phones and tablets already.
primasaurus
Member
I blame our education system for the lack of imagination and creative thinking in this thread
The Jackdog
Member
they bought minecraft cause oh my god do you see how popular minecraft is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i36I0eTdl0
For you gamers who can't think outside of your gaming heads... this is the presentation. Shows how it can work outside of just gaming/minecraft. The price will be closer to a higher end laptop/TV than a xbo/ps4.
Yes, the hands on so far has been that the field of view is small... but that's so far and no one knows when this will be released and how far they can go with it. And it's gen 1. I presume they will work on that and CPU/gpu/hpu power as time goes on.
In my opinion, Hololens is way more practical to use than an Oculus Rift. Oculus, yea, is more immersive but Hololens is not tethered to a phone, pc, has its own battery, no wires, and is it's own computer. Not one VR solution can say the same right now. I believe Oculus is a good step in the right direction but I think its not practical and its use cases are much smaller than Hololens just by its nature. Being able to move around and have my "digital world" go with me is something you can't do with Oculus easily. You lose immersion once u have to move with a controller comparatively.
I think the battery lasting around 3-5 hours is fine for gen 1. I don't think I need to wear it for more than that period of time (and probably not recommended for my eyes).
For you gamers who can't think outside of your gaming heads... this is the presentation. Shows how it can work outside of just gaming/minecraft. The price will be closer to a higher end laptop/TV than a xbo/ps4.
Yes, the hands on so far has been that the field of view is small... but that's so far and no one knows when this will be released and how far they can go with it. And it's gen 1. I presume they will work on that and CPU/gpu/hpu power as time goes on.
In my opinion, Hololens is way more practical to use than an Oculus Rift. Oculus, yea, is more immersive but Hololens is not tethered to a phone, pc, has its own battery, no wires, and is it's own computer. Not one VR solution can say the same right now. I believe Oculus is a good step in the right direction but I think its not practical and its use cases are much smaller than Hololens just by its nature. Being able to move around and have my "digital world" go with me is something you can't do with Oculus easily. You lose immersion once u have to move with a controller comparatively.
I think the battery lasting around 3-5 hours is fine for gen 1. I don't think I need to wear it for more than that period of time (and probably not recommended for my eyes).
I find it interesting that Microsoft actually sees this as a plausible use case for teh average consumer.
Diddy Kong
Banned
y'all too quick.
No, hololens is actually practical.
Oh yeah? I bet the image quality on that is pure ass compared to any decent TV. Nevermind watching a movie with that thing on your head for two hours, or its limited field of view.
So, room sized spreadsheets? CAD using large arm movements? The new smart board in schools?
dancrane212
Member
Hololense and VR/AR in general is, without being able to experience yourself, something that's pretty hard to sell conceptually. With Minecraft being as far reaching as it is the idea of showing creations you made in the game sitting in the same room as you is a good "showpiece" that folk would understand more than showing something they have no attachment to or knowledge of.
For sure 99.9% of those viewers won't drop the large amount of money for Hololense but using Minecraft to sell the concept of the device is a pretty smart idea.
I think in order for this to take off, MS should definitely subsidize the cost of this... Aka, if you own windows 10/surface or Xbox One, you can pick it up for $200-250. That way it gets a large user base quickly, which in turn helps the other two platforms as well. But this device should not cost more that $350 if they want it to really be picked up by the masses..
Corporate is another thing.
Corporate is another thing.
I might be silly, but I would pay a lot of money for this thing. And I would be cool with it. How much is an Occulus? and this is a full PC on your head, that I may be able to play XB1 games through on a wall, and pin a skype window to the wall next to me, with a live ticket feed of some of my work stuff in another window.
It just seems insanely cool.
It just seems insanely cool.
It's like an isolated version of 3D glasses. 3D never took off because nobody wanted to sit in front of TV in their own home with those stupid glasses. Now it's a strapped on visor and it's just you. It's a cool tech demo but it's not going to set the world on fire. Same with VR.
I love everyone that pops up seemingly an expert on the IQ and functionality of this product. The FOV seems to be the biggest drawback on this thing, and I doubt the gestures work as seemlessly as the presentation, but jesus christ people just admit that it's cool if it works as advertisted. Thing could have amazing IQ and sell for 3 grand for all you know.
Welfare
Member
So it's going to sell like hotcakes at launch?
There is great delusion in this thread. This device will revolutionize a lot of work, be it building or architecture or cad work. The first gen device will of course be expensive (i'm thinking close to a grand) but so is a good computer. It is hardly overpriced.
For normal consumers it will be a fun thing which i can see a lot of tabletop gaming work awesome for this.
For normal consumers it will be a fun thing which i can see a lot of tabletop gaming work awesome for this.
LegendofLex
Member
Really, really bad read on Minecraft's success.
Minecraft succeeds because it fills the void of games that:
- Are accessible to a large swath of players (like classic Nintendo games)
- Allow players to basically go at the game world however they want (like classic Zelda)
- Allow players to use tools to manipulate the game world (also like classic Zelda, except multiplied since the game world can now remember these changes and be added to--really more like SimCity/The Sims, Animal Crossing, and other sim games)
It also embraced the internet, something no worthwhile game that does all three of these things has ever done before. Nintendo, the player who previously dominated this space, certainly isn't doing it. And Nintendo has been lagging behind on the last two points for the last few generations anyway.
Viewing Minecraft as succeeding because of "new technology" or being a herald of "new technology" is just absurd. Everything Minecraft does, from the gameplay hooks all the way down to the graphics, is old stuff just done better.
Minecraft succeeds because it fills the void of games that:
- Are accessible to a large swath of players (like classic Nintendo games)
- Allow players to basically go at the game world however they want (like classic Zelda)
- Allow players to use tools to manipulate the game world (also like classic Zelda, except multiplied since the game world can now remember these changes and be added to--really more like SimCity/The Sims, Animal Crossing, and other sim games)
It also embraced the internet, something no worthwhile game that does all three of these things has ever done before. Nintendo, the player who previously dominated this space, certainly isn't doing it. And Nintendo has been lagging behind on the last two points for the last few generations anyway.
Viewing Minecraft as succeeding because of "new technology" or being a herald of "new technology" is just absurd. Everything Minecraft does, from the gameplay hooks all the way down to the graphics, is old stuff just done better.
Not totally, at least a few of us see the light.
The FOV is the only drawback right now from hands on the device but that's a tech that can improve. I'm definitely gonna buy one at launch even with its "issues." I can wait to game dev on this. So much potential.
And c'mon people...MUTHAFUCKIN YUGIOH! HOW CAN U NOT SEE THIS?
Why? The fact that it has its own on built rendering is good news...there is no reason why for something more graphics intensive it could make use of networked computers
My head hurts trying to figure out your reasoning...
Take that Kaiba. Screw your duel disks
GuitarAtomik
Member
This thing is going to be a stand alone computer. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up around $1000 or more.
Presumably, not yet. But on the long-term I think they'll certainly make their investment back. (a couple of years)
Probably. Illumiroom was more of proof of concept though. Never really materialized in production and distribution of developer SDK's.
Parody post, right?
Not just could be a big hit. I think it's very likely that it will be a big hit if manages to get developers on board and various industry sectors on board for professional usage.
And if it works really well and is ergonomic of course.
Minecraft would just be one of the many things.
Could you elaborate upon that statement? It's very likely to be a popular device.
It isn't like only consumer electronics that are priced <400/$400 are commercially successful.