Support NeoGAF

[shacklesmcgee]

I genuinely hope this doesn't kill the VR movement. There's a lot of good that can come out of that. Google, Microsoft and other companies (Apple?) will probably push AR forward into the front and leave VR in the dust so that has to hurt some of the businesses like Facebook, unless they also are in the AR game but we don't know about it.

The Star Trek like hologram we all want needs both AR and VR, nothing is being left in the dust.

 

[Banderdash]

I have questions about the battery life, & the unit that apparently sits around the wearers neck. It was mentioned in the early previews, so maybe it's been incorporated into the headset.

The potential for demonstrating to others is probably greater than occulus... because you don't have to worry about things like pink eye, & it's its own computer.

 

[Hubbl3]

Imagine playing Silent Hills and you catch a ghost standing right behind your own piece of furniture.

My attic already scares the hell out of me. I'd totally set up a Silent Hills/AR experience up there and prepare for the river of poo to flow!

 

[nicanica]

Can a man dream?

+

+

 

[Regret Upon Approval]

Yugioh!, Pokémon battles, RTS games

I would actually like to see a Pokémon related game, but one were you have a Pokémon as a pet I'd like to have a piplup running around my house.

Yeah I want stuff like that, especially Pokemon.
However, that hinges on Nintendo pretty much.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Maybe it is new. Maybe it is disruptive. But still, maybe it isn`t something everybody was waiting nor asking for.

I am still not sure what to think about it. If it only works if directly connected to a PC or XBone, then no. Google Glass is more or less the same AR tech but works everywhere (unless you are connected to the Internet via 3G/LTE). That's far more impressive, from my point of view.

Did you watch the presentation? They pointedly said that it's untethered and doesn't require a phone either.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I've read several previews and shit, I'm ready for it. Not a single one was negative. I hated VR but this is such a different experience. When the leak said a "VR helmet" I thought the worst.

fuck guys, fuck.

*avatar quote*

Beaten lol

 

[SunSunich]

I think they rushed demonstration:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/21/microsoft-hololens-hands-on/

The demos begin by lowering a tethered, relatively small, rectangular computer over your head, which hangs around your neck by sling. Like what Flavor Flav would do with a computer. You can literally feel the heat coming off the computer's fans, which face upward. It feels like you're wearing a computer around your neck, because you are.

After that, the headset was carefully handed to me so that I could guide it onto my head while the demonstrator placed it over my eyes. To be completely clear, the headset dev kit I tried literally had exposed circuit boards.

In practice, the resolution is sharp but the field of view is extremely limited. There's a rectangular area in the center of your vision that acts as your "window" into the reality HoloLens presents.

I say that with the intention of couching what will assuredly sound like disappointment: HoloLens is clearly very early, and kinda sucks right now. It's uncomfortable. It's cumbersome. It looks and feels like a piece of hardware that's far from final.

Is it bad? No. Lord no. Stop it. It's very impressive, but it's a brand-new entry in a market that basically doesn't exist yet. Good on Microsoft for that! At the same time, man, Microsoft has a long way to go before this is something we want to use at home. When it's got Windows 10? And can be used untethered?

 

[Figments]

I think they rushed demonstration:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/21/microsoft-hololens-hands-on/

Hot damn. Imagine what more time in the proverbial oven would do.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Fuckkk she totally knew


How does the announcement of a new disruptive technoledgy only have 11 pages?

..disruptive? lol maybe to my room clutter

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I think they rushed demonstration:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/21/microsoft-hololens-hands-on/

Hot damn. Imagine what more time in the proverbial oven would do.

I'm pretty sure it has already been confirmed that some of the demonstration units where earlier dev kits but what you saw the lady wearing in the demo was the current working model.

 

[call_kotaku]

Hot damn. Imagine what more time in the proverbial oven would do.

Hopefully MS learned enough from Kinect about rushing technology to market 10 years too early

 

[Shaunboy97]

My daughter got home from school and I showed her the footage of the woman making the quadcopter and explained how it would show up for her and look real. Then I showed her this and she went bananas over the idea of her room looking like it was a Minecraft world.

I haven't had a chance to show my kids yet!! I'm still trying the grasp the idea myself!! I'm gonna start saving my pennies NOW!!

 

[Ingueferroque]

Microsoft is so bad at these presentations. But at least they try.

 

[Cameron122]

City planning and architecture will be pretty neat with this

I'd also like a new army men rts somehow

 

[mooksoup]

with HoloLens its going to be so intense when this happens.

 

[MeatloafOFdoom]

There is no way this thing comes out within 3 or 4 years and even then this will be basically only for companies and or very rich people. I have to imagine these will cost at least a grand or more. Not sure why people are getting hyped up about something that will not be in the average gamers hands anytime in the near future.

With that said, this thing is awesome.

 

[bj00rn_]

I've read several previews and shit, I'm ready for it. Not a single one was negative. I hated VR but this is such a different experience. When the leak said a "VR helmet" I thought the worst.

In my opinion it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to hate VR if you love this. So I suspect you don't "hate" VR, but I assume you have some form of distaste for the current somewhat visually clumsy (dev kit and early tech) design of the OR and Morpheus. The reason it doesn't make sense to hate VR and love AR is that VR has always been intended to do forms of AR in somewhat the same ways (to the user) as Hololens (and many suspect that the OR CV1 might come with stereoscopic cameras built in for see-through and first gen type AR).

With that said, this is absolutely no raining on MS's parade, on the contrary, I applaud MS for doing this, and seemingly well. This is only pushing VR/AR to new heights, and it is making me even more excited for the future.

Good job so far MS.

 

[Linkup]

Wow, the world's first holographic processing unit!

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Did you watch the presentation? They pointedly said that it's untethered and doesn't require a phone either.

I only read the engadget article. According to Ben Gilbert it is still unclear if it can be used untethered.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

There is no way this thing comes out within 3 or 4 years and even then this will be basically only for companies and or very rich people. I have to imagine these will cost at least a grand or more. Not sure why people are getting hyped up about something that will not be in the average gamers hands anytime in the near future.

With that said, this thing is awesome.

Well it looks like it is further along than some want to believe...

"The simulation is so effective that NASA plans to deploy it on a mission by this summer. But this is just one example of Project HoloLens' capabilities. The real opportunity for the platform will come from developers committing resources and imagination to it. NASA has already signed on as a launch partner; others will likely follow." http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/

Microsoft were also hinting at planning on having it on the market by the time windows 10 releases I believe.

 

[ChosenPredator]

Imagine playing Silent Hills and you catch a ghost standing right behind your own piece of furniture.

thats way to scary because it;s actually being played in your room or house lol

 

[yurinka]

After Natal, game graphics powered by the power of the cloud and Illumiroom, I'm skeptical about that.

But at the same time this seems markerless Vita AR + Google Glass so it shouldn't be too dificult to implement.


Imagine that with a Vita attached to your head (wouldn't be this the same than this 'holographic' thing?):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1PG2uSwEKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gV8Ufm2PxU

Btw where is the holographic thing here? Is there an holographic projector to see stuff in 3D without glasses? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyxyy10YoNM

 

[Dreamgazer]

There is no way this thing comes out within 3 or 4 years and even then this will be basically only for companies and or very rich people. I have to imagine these will cost at least a grand or more. Not sure why people are getting hyped up about something that will not be in the average gamers hands anytime in the near future.

With that said, this thing is awesome.

It's just wearable AR + gesture & surface tracking.
aka.. A more powerful google glass with kinect mounted on top.
ex: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/551975293/meta-the-most-advanced-augmented-reality-interface

I don't know why people are making this sound like this is going to cost 10k or something.

 

[golem]

Ars Impressions
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/01/hands-on-with-hololens-making-the-virtual-real/

Through it all, the 3D effect was thoroughly convincing. The system felt very low latency; as I moved my head and walked around, the objects retained their positioning in the real world, with the castle, for example, never becoming detached from or wobbling around on the table. While Minecraft of course falls some way short of having photorealistic graphics, the melding of real and physical nonetheless felt convincing.

 

[Auto-Reply]

I don't see anything useful with this thing regarding gaming... I kinda want one!

 

[MeatloafOFdoom]

It's just wearable AR + gesture & surface tracking.
aka.. A more powerful google glass with kinect mounted on top.
ex: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/551975293/meta-the-most-advanced-augmented-reality-interface

I don't know why people are making this sound like this is going to cost 10k or something.

Because it houses a computer in the headset? Do you think something that needs to shrink hardware that small into a headset will be cheap?

EDIT: I mean for proof, how much did Google Glass cost? 1,500 dollars and Google Glass is no where as powerful as the HoloLens.

 

[travisbickle]

I genuinely hope this doesn't kill the VR movement. There's a lot of good that can come out of that. Google, Microsoft and other companies (Apple?) will probably push AR forward into the front and leave VR in the dust so that has to hurt some of the businesses like Facebook, unless they also are in the AR game but we don't know about it.

You can't do "ironic hyperbolic posts" because it's too close to the way you normally post about MS.

 

[MeatloafOFdoom]

Well it looks like it is further along than some want to believe...

"The simulation is so effective that NASA plans to deploy it on a mission by this summer. But this is just one example of Project HoloLens' capabilities. The real opportunity for the platform will come from developers committing resources and imagination to it. NASA has already signed on as a launch partner; others will likely follow." http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/

Microsoft were also hinting at planning on having it on the market by the time windows 10 releases I believe.

AR is not ready for primetime with consumers, maybe for institutions like Nasa but not consumers. It will be way to pricey.

 

[Starbuck2907]

Ars Technica said it was very awesome. They also said production units will be battery powered but the prototype uses wired power. Someone posted the Ars link above. It should probably be in the OP. Very good read.

 

[Earthanoid]

There is no way this thing comes out within 3 or 4 years and even then this will be basically only for companies and or very rich people. I have to imagine these will cost at least a grand or more. Not sure why people are getting hyped up about something that will not be in the average gamers hands anytime in the near future.

With that said, this thing is awesome.

The projection technology on HoloLens is probably the same or similar to what is being used in Glass, except the projected area is much bigger and placed in the middle of your view instead of off to the side. HoloLens doesn't require a tethered phone, unlike Glass, and from the sound of it HoloLens has a lot more sensors built into it. Glass cost $1500 so I'll be surprised if HoloLens is less, especially if it has a "first of its kind" SoC in it as well as CPU and GPU comparable to what is in a laptop.

I'm betting MS takes an approach like Google or Oculus and sells developer units at a high price for several years before they even think about a lower-priced consumer version.

 

[DSix]

Looks like a nice AR headset.

The MS marketing dept has no idea what are real holograms, everytime they use the word I want to punch them in the mouth. Branding stereoscopic AR as holographic is retarded.

 

[chadskin]

I think they rushed demonstration:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/21/microsoft-hololens-hands-on/

Does it work? Yes, it works. Is it any good? That's a much harder question to answer. In its current state, HoloLens is a series of demos with varying levels of polish, meant to demonstrate the possibility of the device. More clearly: In its current state, HoloLens is far from ready for public consumption. It's an impressive demo in need of long-term investment, which Microsoft says is happening.

By the time HoloLens comes out, VR will already be in millions of consumer's hands I guess. Whether VR will be a (commercial) success definitely remains to be seen but being way cheaper and being on the market earlier are definitely advantages.

 

[MeatloafOFdoom]

The projection technology on HoloLens is probably the same or similar to what is being used in Glass, except the projected area is much bigger and placed in the middle of your view instead of off to the side. HoloLens doesn't require a tethered phone, unlike Glass, and from the sound of it HoloLens has a lot more sensors built into it. Glass cost $1500 so I'll be surprised if HoloLens is less, especially if it has a "first of its kind" SoC in it as well as CPU and GPU comparable to what is in a laptop.

I'm betting MS takes an approach like Google or Oculus and sells developer units at a high price for several years before they even think about a lower-priced consumer version.

I agree, the SOC alone will be the reason this device will be easily more expensive then Google Glass and until MS can get that price below 500 dollars for consumers this will not be on the market for the average person. If they release it publicly with that hefty price, it will die a painful death like Google Glass.

 

[mrklaw]

I think one fundamental limitation with respect to games, is that this technology is more suited to objects in situ. You can have game characters in your room for instance, but you can't easily have a scrolling landscape - it would just look weird against your fixed room.

So going into minecraft for instance would be very much like having a diorama you can scroll around - you wouldn't easily be 'in' the world which is one of the big reasons I play. That Mars demo example is likely in a large open space set aside for the task - something that most normal people won't have the luxury of.

One upside may be less issues with motion sickness if you always have a physical reference point in view. But then that would suggest no ability for oresence because you always know you're not in a different world.

 

[Hubble]

A timeline to extract from of Hololens

First, Nadella plans to spark the public imagination by introducing the device to folks it calls “makers”—the people who attend TED conferences and lined up to buy Google Glass—and the oh-so-critical developers. Microsoft plans to distribute lots of development kits this year. Next up will be the commercial partners. Finally, once the platform has critical mass, Microsoft will make it available to everyone, including the Minecraft-obsessed.

The slow rollout is because—in another sign of an attitude shift—Nadella says he wants to see how people react to Project HoloLens, and adjust the product accordingly. In 2007, when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, he resisted apps, preferring his customers to access the web through their Safari browsers. But after that approach tanked, in 2008 he released a software development kit for app makers and launched the App Store. In similar fashion, Nadella has defined a strategy for Project HoloLens but says its path will ultimately be determined by the behaviors and preferences of its developers and users.

 

[Earthanoid]

I agree, the SOC alone will be the reason this device will be easily more expensive then Google Glass and until MS can get that price below 500 dollars for consumers this will not be on the market for the average person. If they release it publicly with that hefty price, it will die a painful death like Google Glass.

I don't believe that Glass is dead, and I don't think HoloLens will die under this strategy either. Both things are really the same kind of technology being implemented in slightly different ways. But the technology is in its early stages so there's a lot of work to be done. These tech companies want to be onboard whatever the next computing revolution is and this is as a good a candidate as any.

That said, while the tech is cool it's not going mainstream any time soon.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

By the time HoloLens comes out, VR will already be in millions of consumer's hands I guess. Whether VR will be a (commercial) success definitely remains to be seen but being way cheaper and being on the market earlier are definitely advantages.

What makes VR way cheaper?

That HoloLens has a camera attached?

 

[Prototype]

This is awesome. I think people over look AR with all the VA hype, but both are pretty cool.

 

[Dreamgazer]

Because it houses a computer in the headset? Do you think something that needs to shrink hardware that small into a headset will be cheap?

EDIT: I mean for proof, how much did Google Glass cost? 1,500 dollars and Google Glass is no where as powerful as the HoloLens.

Google Glass uses an unimpressive OMAP4 chip that dates back to 2011. By the time this thing launches, MS would have powerful chips like the Tegra X1 at cheaper prices. This isn't VR where there we're doing gaming that demands high refresh rate + powerful rigs. .

Besides, power isn't what driving the costs of these things, it's the lens and screens - and those are dropping in prices too.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Looks like a nice AR headset.

The MS marketing dept has no idea what are real holograms, everytime they use the word I want to punch them in the mouth. Branding stereoscopic AR as holographic is retarded.

Holography isn't just free standing 3D images though like a holodeck. It's a specific technique of displaying a 3D image.

Just a quick example, on some currencies they use holograms as a security measure. Hold it up to the light and you see an image to know its not counterfeit.

Here's an article by Ray Kurzweil talking about a similar product: http://www.kurzweilai.net/3d-augmented-reality-holograms-are-finally-here-almost

It is indeed a holographic headset.

 

[StudioTan]

Watching Windows Weekly on TWiT and both Paul Thurrott and Mary Jo Foley were pretty blown away by the demo. Mary Jo said she didn't think it looked interesting when watching the presentation but completely changed her mind when she actually got to try it.

Interestingly she also said that according to her sources it was a intended as a gaming device until just a few months ago....so I think we should be seeing some Xbox integration for sure.

Also, it's supposed to be out this year.

 

[MeatloafOFdoom]

What makes VR way cheaper?

That HoloLens has a camera attached?

That it has a computer built into it as well, the main reason it would be super expensive right now.

 

[MeatloafOFdoom]

Google Glass uses an unimpressive OMAP4 chip that dates back to 2011. By the time this thing launches, MS would have powerful chips like the Tegra X1 at cheaper prices. This isn't VR where there we're doing gaming that demands high refresh rate + powerful rigs. .

Besides, power isn't what driving the costs of these things, it's the lens and screens - and those are dropping in prices too.

The custom soc alone is going to make this super expensive, not to mention the R&D costs that go into making this happen. Do you honestly think that if this comes out in the next 2 or 3 years that it will be inexpensive?

 

[Alx]

It's just wearable AR + gesture & surface tracking.
aka.. A more powerful google glass with kinect mounted on top.
ex: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/551975293/meta-the-most-advanced-augmented-reality-interface

I don't know why people are making this sound like this is going to cost 10k or something.

Well like mentioned above, the fact that the Google glass dev kit released at almost 2K doesn't help being optimistic.
Of course that was some time ago, but there are many unknowns in the costs of that device, especially since it includes many specific components that aren't mass-produced now. What helps make Oculus "cheap" (and it's still $300) is the fact that it uses phone screens, simple lenses.and sensors, and almost no embedded processing. But I don't think there is such volume for AR displays or that specific chip they added.

Everything considered, I would expect its price to be closer to a Surface (or more) than a Kinect.

 

[mrklaw]

Impressions so far have been positive. Gizmodo mentions a demo where he repaired or installed a light switch. Someone on Skype was guiding him through repairing it, drawing circles around the switch, marking wires, etc., that showed up directly in the wearer's "reality".

I think the educational possibilities alone are pretty amazing. Being able to "be there" remotely and help someone is spectacular.

That stuff sounds great, but the demo was obviously tightly controlled. Having a system that can smartly recognise where a user is looking - and depth, and allow the advisor to mark objects in real world scenarios will be a lot more work. Likewise i doubt you'll be overlaying navigation routes on a mountain trail just yet. Rooms without too much clutter and lots of space is more likely.


The comments about a 16:9 screen are interesting. I think AR can get away with less field of view, so that can be an advantage when it comes to either getting more resolution (because it isn't spread out so much), or requiring less processor power because you're drawing less stuff.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

That it has a computer built into it as well, the main reason it would be super expensive right now.

Ah, thanks.

Yeah, I guess a camera and processor, etc will increase the price by quite a bit.

Will be interesting to see if MS absorbs some of that cost upfront to try and establish an install base for this though.

 

[MeatloafOFdoom]

Ah, thanks.

Yeah, I guess a camera and processor, etc will increase the price by quite a bit.

Will be interesting to see if MS absorbs some of that cost upfront to try and establish an install base for this though.

If i we're MS i would. How often has MS been in the *me to* camp when it comes to things like Cell phones, tablets, etc... If they can get HoloLens squared away and to market with a decent price point, they can take the lead.

 

[Dreamgazer]

The custom soc alone is going to make this super expensive, not to mention the R&D costs that go into making this happen. Do you honestly think that if this comes out in the next 2 or 3 years that it will be inexpensive?

Well like mentioned above, the fact that the Google glass SDK released at almost 2K doesn't help being optimistic.
Of course that was some time ago, but there are many unknowns in the costs of that device, especially since it includes many specific components that aren't mass-produced now. What helps make Oculus "cheap" (and it's still $300) is the fact that it uses phone screens, simple lenses.and sensors, and almost no embedded processing. But I don't think there is such volume for AR displays or that specific chip they added.

Everything considered, I would expect its price to be closer to a Surface (or more) than a Kinect.

Before we further the discussion, what is our definition of expensive?
The Meta dev kit for example is around the price of a surface ($700), the metapro(consumer version ) is $3000.

A head mounted device around $1000+ is the norm to me.

 

[golem]

Interestingly she also said that according to her sources it was a intended as a gaming device until just a few months ago....so I think we should be seeing some Xbox integration for sure.

Well, yeah it leaked with the original Xbox 720 roadmap documents a long time ago as Fortaleza. I wouldnt be surprised if the onboard computing power was something that was recently added to turn it into something beyond being just an Xbox accessory.