-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
MS HoloLens
- Thread starter cyberheater
- Start date
Alx
Member
I agree, 1K+ is expected and wouldn't be surprising, but that's still expensive for mass market. I can't see people buying that if their main motivation is Minecraft and reading e-mails on the wall.
It's a bit like their wall-mounted Surface-TV, nice tech, but only wealthy people, mega-geeks and big business would buy one.
iN1njaCPFC
Member
I can imagine it being like Teamviewer, but for real life. Being able to visualise problems in front of you is a mind blowing idea.
Personally I'd like to see a keyboard projected onto a wall and it knowing whats being typed. If it ever does come to Xbox, I'd love to get a message mid game, which pops up off the screen, then project a keyboard onto a table or wall and reply, without having to leave the game!
Exciting tech!!
...if it works.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
Well, according to her they're not exactly the same thing but some tech from Fortaleza might have been integrated into this. This was known inside MS as Baraboo or Project B.
Raging Spaniard
If they are Dutch, upright and breathing they are more racist than your favorite player
Cool video but any videogame fan should know by now that videos like that are 100 percent bullshit.
CPU, GPU, HPU, sensors and the camera. All the processing is done in and by the device itself which MS says is more powerful than a laptop, while VR relies on a PC/console/mobile phone to do the processing.
So VR with "just" a big screen and a bunch of glasses already costs $200-$300, imagine what a HoloLens device might cost.
Just a thought about that HoloLens and Xbox One:
Eventually it will be possible to outsource the Kinect technology for gaming purposes, when used with Xbox Kinect? So the glasses will become cheaper in production...
Of course the usages will be different from the full HoloLens glasses then.
Eventually it will be possible to outsource the Kinect technology for gaming purposes, when used with Xbox Kinect? So the glasses will become cheaper in production...
Of course the usages will be different from the full HoloLens glasses then.
Alx
Member
That would assume that you're wearing the headset all the time, even when you're not really using it. I think the first generation model is a bit too clunky for that, but in the future it will probably be closer to the Google Glass vision of following you everywhere.
MeatloafOFdoom
Banned
I am super positive that the HoloLens if released today or a year down the line would easily cost more than 1500 dollars if you take into account the custom hardware and R&D along with the marketing for this. Anything over a 500 dollar price point is not a mass market item unless it is a car or an iphone.
killer rin
Member
To be fair, AR is VR on a grander scale. It has to tackle all the same problems of VR with new ones of its own such as super imposing the object realistically on life.
If you can nail AR, to get VR you just need a mechanism to stop the real world from shining through and display the game at a focal point of zero.
iN1njaCPFC
Member
I'm in the mindframe of, picture this. You're already using it for a FPS, so you have your HUD as an actual HUD, maybe you have a 3D minimap to your left, and a message pops up.
Or even if you get an achievement, have it not cover the screen and pop up above the tv for example, and automatically show what it was for.
So many possibilities, let's just hope they don't ruin it.
Dreamgazer
Member
I guess this is where we're gonna have to agree to disagree.
I see the device as an independent smart device, more akin to Surface, than say the oculus/Morpheus. So a sub 1k - 1k price point would be more than reasonable for me by summer of 2016.
If you think 500 is the marketable price point, than yeah - that ain't happening anytime soon.
EventHorizon
Member
The funny thing is that now that HoloLens is an entirely self contained unit, it will have no synergy with the XB1. In effect Microsoft will be releasing an entirely new console. Because of this, I predict that MS will release a tethered version designed to work with the XB1. That will lower the price considerably since they'll no longer have to include the all computing components and battery.
Well they seemed to be pushing it as a standalone device, not some addon for another.
It does sound pretty soon with dev kits given at build prior to the w10 release.
i'll admit I'm less interested in AR than VR. Though in many ways this is glass 2.0, just one aimed at inhome/office use rather than outside.
MeatloafOFdoom
Banned
It's ok to disagree, no need to sugar coat it
. However i take issue with using the Surface as an example, you do know that the Surface has been a pretty big failure right? So if you are going to link the HoloLens to the overly expensive Surface, you are not helping your argument. And a 1,000 dollar price point may be reasonable for you but it would not be for me and many many other people.justsomeguy
Member
It's stand alone. No pc / xbox needed.
Partly because what we saw on stage looked relatively sleek and portable, whereas the actual live demo requires something much more cumbersome. That helps us bridge the knowledge gap about 'how can something so small have so much processing power?' Answer is, it can't.
Alx
Member
The device is standalone, so it is running Windows10 itself, no need for an additional PC. It seems to be designed for interactivity between different platforms, like we can see in the "colosseum" picture (same object seen from glasses, tablet and console), and also in the demo they made on stage (what we were seeing was the scene seen from a PC, with the same AR features)
The dev kits should be released soon, the final product probably won't be released this year though (my own guess, but it seems too early). I hope it will be like Kinect or Oculus and anyone can have a chance to get one, though.
No info on the price yet.
It doesnt sound too likely that it was a completely different project since they even had the original Kinect people working on it. She even mentions hearing it was a gaming only device up until 6 months ago. Either way I'm glad they are exploring a multitude of applications for it.
But it isn't. We have Markerless AR demos on a fucking vita. The primary difference seems to be looking through a device like a vita, or tablet to see a video feed of your surroundings with an object superimposed, to having the object superimoosed in your direct view using a headset. I doubt the tracking technology is that different but the display method is, and hat makes a huge difference to how it is perceived
Dreamgazer
Member
It's ok to disagree, no need to sugar coat it
lol. I say agree to disagree since I know it's going to be pointless to have a discussion on what are appropriate prices.
As for Surface being a big overly expensive failure...don't let the MS fans hear you lol.
(Anyway, the point is that I see both as independent smart devices. Although I know most of GAF would want this/some off-shoot that is more related to X1 gaming)
killer rin
Member
The surface hasn't been a failure. Only the first batch a couple years ago. It actually makes money now and is on track to report as a billion dollar business come a few weeks once financials come out.It's ok to disagree, no need to sugar coat it
VlaudTheImpaler
tl;dr
According to Mary Jo Foley and Paul Thurrott what was used for the demonstrations with the press were early Dev kits and what was shown on stage during the presentation was the current functioning build.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Which is great.
Presumably you'll be able to stream content from another PC to this device for even better visuals.
I think you will stream your Xbox game to Hololens..
Alx
Member
The fact that the environment perception is based on depth cameras probably makes the tracking different and richer. I'm not familiar with the AR on Vita, but I suppose there are only so many planes it can track through RGB video only. And it probably assumes rectangular shapes, while depth sensors can detect any flat plane, with arbitrary or even non visible borders.
Also the Hololens
(why is there a "lol" in that name ? It's Xbone all over again)
Lord Phol
Member
While I like the idea of an interactive holo-world (would probably go batshit insane over this if I was a kid) I'm not completely sold that this will be as good as I would want it to be. I can see alot of problems with the lighting and room having to be tuned in specific ways for this to work perfectly.
I'll remain cautiously interested but currently VR has taken up most of my hype-meter. If I'm proven wrong and the tech exists to make AR as awesome as I imagined it as a child though, then this might be somethign really neat.
I'll remain cautiously interested but currently VR has taken up most of my hype-meter. If I'm proven wrong and the tech exists to make AR as awesome as I imagined it as a child though, then this might be somethign really neat.
Tntnico
Member
They showed Netflix streaming but not games streaming. So to be sure that this feature is coming, I've done an uservoice proposition :
https://xbox.uservoice.com/forums/2...ons/6995411-stream-xbox-one-games-to-hololens
MeatloafOFdoom
Banned
Well,i did read up and you are correct but they are still 1.6 billion in the hole with Surface as a whole but it looks like they are turning it around somewhat, good for MS!
Miles Quaritch
Member
Indeed.
Well damn. That seem like it will make it mighty expensive, but at the same time, MS must have bigger plans for this than the enthusiasts market.
Voted.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Well one of the newer iPads have the similar processing power to a laptop these days. Remove that expensive screen, add in a couple of cheap LED projectors and the rest of the gubbins.
I think they could make this sub $500 (I hope).
Sony's magnet AR demo in 2011 supported fairly complex environments.
http://youtu.be/TLtHIodo_-0
I agree that hololens will have much richer tracking etc, I was just pointing out that this isn't a massive leap in never before seen tech, more a natural progression, with any disruption being in the head-mounted part - that is clearly much more immersive than looking through another device.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
There is no reason why this device couldn't do full VR as well. You'd just need to block out the light from the room or sit in the dark.
This could be the device for Xbox One VR.
EventHorizon
Member
This is a lot more than a "couple of cheap LED projectors". If it were that easy, it would have already been done. I would expect the optics to be comparable to VR headsets in terms of price. Then on top of that you have to add the computing power of a laptop, and a battery. This is going to be extremely expensive.
Don't think so. First off it doesn't cover your entire field of view. Second, there is no way this will have enough processing power to do full VR.
huntingzibod
Member
Interesting concept, though I think concept is just what it will be for a long while.
As it stands, it is not going to be as immersive as VR, nor as unintrusive as Google Glass.
Given that Google have shelved Glass, and the entire industry is focussed on VR, I find it hard to believe this is an idea that will gain mainstream traction.
The first problem is cost. Glass was sold (albeit in the Explorers edition) for $1500, and this is exponentially more complex.
THey have a mini Kinect camera system, a reasonably high end PC system, and a proprietary projector and lense array at the front. Given that the typical RRP of VR will be around $300-400 - without any of the computer processing etc, the price of this will be significantly higher, even under mass production. THe nearest example of a similar device would be the Gear VR with a Note 4 - which RRP is about $1000 without the camera or advanced lens array!
I envisage it being used niche industries, rather than gaming - Architectural, medical, remote support (EG. Emergency services), that sort of thing.
What this highlights is that unless MS release a drastically reduced, tethered version for XBOX that uses Kinect 2.0, MS has no answer of Oculus Rift or Morpheus any time soon.
As it stands, it is not going to be as immersive as VR, nor as unintrusive as Google Glass.
Given that Google have shelved Glass, and the entire industry is focussed on VR, I find it hard to believe this is an idea that will gain mainstream traction.
The first problem is cost. Glass was sold (albeit in the Explorers edition) for $1500, and this is exponentially more complex.
THey have a mini Kinect camera system, a reasonably high end PC system, and a proprietary projector and lense array at the front. Given that the typical RRP of VR will be around $300-400 - without any of the computer processing etc, the price of this will be significantly higher, even under mass production. THe nearest example of a similar device would be the Gear VR with a Note 4 - which RRP is about $1000 without the camera or advanced lens array!
I envisage it being used niche industries, rather than gaming - Architectural, medical, remote support (EG. Emergency services), that sort of thing.
What this highlights is that unless MS release a drastically reduced, tethered version for XBOX that uses Kinect 2.0, MS has no answer of Oculus Rift or Morpheus any time soon.
The applications are so COMPLETELY different though. I see where VR is going to be fantastic for gaming or 'getting away' from the world, but having the world still function while you are using all of the other sorts of software you could with AR/hololens is a whole different beast. One is super impressive and fun and one could legitimately be lifestyle altering if they leverage it right.
I mean I could see a future where you'd throw your VR on for gaming/movies/whatever, and your AR headset for like the rest of the time you're awake. We're talking WAY down the line, but it's that kind of tech.
I think you're rather getting ahead of yourself about the capabilities here. This is in no way a substitute for actual VR as it is known today.
Yet another Microsoft technology of the future that requires an immaculate and spacious room with a professional lighting crew (and that's being generous, do we know they didn't just give the device an accurate 3d model of the demo rooms? You know, like Google does with their "self-driving" cars?)
Alx
Member
Well that's another kind of tracking then. Apparently it's "structure from motion", that will first detect points that are easy to track, then deduce from their motion different planes in the scene. That's fine and all, but it mostly works in static scenes, and require a first scanning of the environment. The fact that the scene is apparently complex is actually helping the tracking, it wouldn't work as well with more simple surfaces.
Catching up on some impressions, I really hope this works out well. It's exciting to see things finally starting to come together on this front.
I've some reservations, but I guess we have to bear in mind that it seems to be a super early prototype. Like the narrow FoV of the display - not a dealbreaker, but it would be nice for a wide FoV that could more convincingly wrap AR and VR onto one device.
The other question mark I have after reading previews is interaction. It seems the more sophisticated interaction demo wasn't being shown as a hands-on, which sets off some alarm bells. One of my big questions before reading the previews was about hand interaction and latency therein. Things are still early of course, but it's a shame we don't seem to have any idea of where they are with that yet, as assessed independently. Maybe it's just the previews I've read, but the demos they let people try seemed to all involve head interaction and a limited hand gesture vs 1:1 hand manipulation (?) I expect this end of things is one of the bigger challenges.
On the application side I'm not sure it's something that you'd want to map 100% virtual experiences - vs other alternatives - and mixing in the real world presents challenges...at least when I think about it from a game design point of view. There's literally no accounting for different environments which could make it difficult to craft a specific kind of designed experience vs a more free-form 'toy'. But it would be interesting to explore the latter too and how much mileage it can give you.
I've some reservations, but I guess we have to bear in mind that it seems to be a super early prototype. Like the narrow FoV of the display - not a dealbreaker, but it would be nice for a wide FoV that could more convincingly wrap AR and VR onto one device.
The other question mark I have after reading previews is interaction. It seems the more sophisticated interaction demo wasn't being shown as a hands-on, which sets off some alarm bells. One of my big questions before reading the previews was about hand interaction and latency therein. Things are still early of course, but it's a shame we don't seem to have any idea of where they are with that yet, as assessed independently. Maybe it's just the previews I've read, but the demos they let people try seemed to all involve head interaction and a limited hand gesture vs 1:1 hand manipulation (?) I expect this end of things is one of the bigger challenges.
On the application side I'm not sure it's something that you'd want to map 100% virtual experiences - vs other alternatives - and mixing in the real world presents challenges...at least when I think about it from a game design point of view. There's literally no accounting for different environments which could make it difficult to craft a specific kind of designed experience vs a more free-form 'toy'. But it would be interesting to explore the latter too and how much mileage it can give you.
You're grossly downplaying the technology this thing contains. It has a dedicated hardware chip comparable to the GPU and CPU thats used solely for processing the Augmented Reality models in real 3D space. It also uses an advanced set of sensors much akin to the Kinect, sensing depth via infra red light to place the objects perfectly in real unmarked 3D space. It can also sense the materials that objects in the 3D space are made of, a game character will bounce around if it walks onto a couch for example.
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Banned
Just want to post my opinion that I wrote upelsewhere:
From what I understand, the man who is working on this also made Kinect.
Kinect, an amazing piece of technology. Kinect, an amazing piece of technology forced to do what it wasn't really designed to do. It can do a million and one things, but being a gaming controller isn't one of them.
I expect this man's second creation to be just as amazing as Kinect. But I am NOT going to even pretend to believe that it will do whatever Microsoft is trying to say it could do. I full on expect the technology be jammed where it doesn't belong like a square peg in a round hole.
99% chance Microsoft is lying. And that they re-purposed the technology for AR when it isn't suitable for it.
From what I understand, the man who is working on this also made Kinect.
Kinect, an amazing piece of technology. Kinect, an amazing piece of technology forced to do what it wasn't really designed to do. It can do a million and one things, but being a gaming controller isn't one of them.
I expect this man's second creation to be just as amazing as Kinect. But I am NOT going to even pretend to believe that it will do whatever Microsoft is trying to say it could do. I full on expect the technology be jammed where it doesn't belong like a square peg in a round hole.
99% chance Microsoft is lying. And that they re-purposed the technology for AR when it isn't suitable for it.
Sure, applications are certainly what will set VR and AR apart but short-term and for gaming, VR has - in my opinion - a better chance of succeeding than AR, based on variables like price, release and I'd argue ease of development. That's what I was getting at, we're at GAF after all.
Yup.
Way too much light coming into your eye on the HoloLens to make VR possible/enjoyable. That's definitely not going to happen nor is it designed to do that.
UnluckyKate
Member
I'm waking up to this. People actually bought these fake as hell demo ? Microsoft at it again.
AR isn't Holo
my god and the press just bought all that
AR isn't Holo
my god and the press just bought all that