Support NeoGAF

[manual4]

VR is going to collapse on its self, all these companies joining in when there is not even one released consumer product to really test it out.

 

[jacksepticeye]

Dont care how it performs, the competition is good enough

 

[Krejlooc]

And just because a bunch of companies are jumping into the pot, doesn't mean it's going to be a success. Everyone jumped in on 3D. Quite a few jumped in on motion control gaming.

Everyone keeps saying this, but no, thats not how it worked. 3d was a top-down push, the big entities telling content creators that its the next big thing. And, outside of the biggest content creators who were owned by said entities, they didnt jump on board. There are no indie 3d movies, or at least very little.

Same with motion controls. Nintendo, sony, and microsoft pushed it in devs and it just never got adopted correctly.

Vr is the exact opposite. This has been developer driven from day 1. This is content creators telling the big entities that this is the next big thing, and announcements like this are the big entities announcing they finally agree.

This is a very different situation from 3d. People in the development sphere are tripping over themselves to produce content. Content is always king when ushering a medium change.

 

[AzaK]

Oculus seem to be helping lots of companies get their own VR systems up and running; it's confusing as to the point of helping the competition so much. I am guessing there's some major partnerships and money changing hands?

 

[serversurfer]

How is head tracking going to be accomplished? Won't they need a static observer like DK2/Morpheus, lest they be subject to barf-inducing drift like DK1? =/

 

[PGamer]

Oculus seem to be helping lots of companies get their own VR systems up and running; it's confusing as to the point of helping the competition so much. I am guessing there's some major partnerships and money changing hands?

Sumsung is believed to be supplying the screens for the Oculus Rift.

 

[Just_myles]

This helps VR as a whole. More people buy into this the less of a commodity it becomes. I honestly don't care who is making it.

 

[test_account]

I'm aware. I was just trying to point out that using a particular company's presence in a market as some indicator of future success is a mistake.

I understand, i agree with that. It does show that there are a high(er) interest for VR when more companies tries to make it though. But yeah, ultimately, the consumers will decide VR's faith.

 

[harSon]

Everyone keeps saying this, but no, thats not how it worked. 3d was a top-down push, the big entities telling content creators that its the next big thing. And, outside of the biggest content creators who were owned by said entities, they didnt jump on board. There are no indie 3d movies, or at least very little.

Same with motion controls. Nintendo, sony, and microsoft pushed it in devs and it just never got adopted correctly.

Vr is the exact opposite. This has been developer driven from day 1. This is content creators telling the big entities that this is the next big thing, and announcements like this are the big entities announcing they finally agree.

This is a very different situation from 3d. People in the development sphere are tripping over themselves to produce content. Content is always king when ushering a medium change.

But developers are ultimately going to have the same issues they do with any peripheral, and that's the fact that they'll be developing for a reduced marketshare. Those who develop for VR will be targeting a marketshare (those who own a PC, PS4, etc.) of a marketshare (those who own the peripheral in question). With such a pricey barrier of entry, how large do you expect the marketshare to be?

Will it be enough to ignore the totality of the PC and Playstation, Microsoft, & Nintendo console platforms? Because that's ultimately going to be the question that medium and large sized developers are going to ask themselves. We've learned that half assed experiences don't push a platform, and we've also learned that it takes consistent quality experiences that take 100% advantage of the technology to truly push a platform. In such troubled waters where developers are one bad investment away from closing up shop, do you think developers are going to take a leap of faith and truly develop for these consoles? Or are they going to do what they always do and wait on the sidelines for the technology to take off, releasing tacked on features onto existing games or half assed games from B-teams, all the while the technology dries up due to a lack of commitment from the major players.

Hell, with the Wii, developers were reluctant to truly jump in and forego the markets of the PC, 360 and PS3, and the market had clearly spoken in a MASSIVE way that they were interested in motion gaming.

 

[Reversed]

That Virtual Boy color scheme.

(Virtual Boy case sold separately)

Just like the Game Boy case for the iPhone.

 

[serversurfer]

Oculus seem to be helping lots of companies get their own VR systems up and running; it's confusing as to the point of helping the competition so much. I am guessing there's some major partnerships and money changing hands?

"We're clearly not a hardware company." -Mark Zuckerberg

I'm not surprised Oculus/Facebook are trying to get everyone else to make the hardware. I don't think Zuckerberg has any particular interest in making or selling hardware. He'd much rather let another company deal with those headaches, and make money on micro-transactions in whatever Facebook's version of Home turns out to be.

I'm sure there will be a CV1, simply because we were promised one, but I won't be surprised if it turns out to merely be a Samsung/Sony/LG/whoever product based on a reference design, with a "Rift by Oculus" logo slapped on the side. I'd be amazed if there's ever a CV2, unless those "by Oculus" stickers actually help to move units.

 

[Krejlooc]

But developers are ultimately going to have the same issues they do with any peripheral, and that's the fact that they'll be developing for a reduced marketshare. Those who develop for VR will be targeting a marketshare (those who own a PC, PS4, etc.) of a marketshare (those who own the peripheral in question). With such a pricey barrier of entry, how large do you expect the marketshare to be?

Oculus expects 1 million + sales of CV1 within 2 years. Business inside expects 18 million VR headsets to be sold by the end of the decade.

The questions you pose are not nearly as insurmountable as you would make them seem. Your first problem is calling VR a peripheral, when it's not. It's a medium. This will likely follow the same adoption curve that hardware accelerated 3D followed.

Will it be enough to ignore the totality of the PC and Playstation, Microsoft, & Nintendo console platforms? Because that's ultimately going to be the question that medium and large sized developers are going to ask themselves. We've learned that half assed experiences don't push a platform, and we've also learned that it takes consistent quality experiences that take 100% advantage of the technology to truly push a platform. In such troubled waters where developers are one bad investment away from closing up shop, do you think developers are going to take a leap of faith and truly develop for these consoles? Or are they going to do what they always do and wait on the sidelines for the technology to take off, releasing tacked on features onto existing games or half assed games from B-teams, all the while the technology dries up due to a lack of commitment from the major players.

Video games are hardly the only application for VR. Samsung's headset is said to explicitly be targeting multimedia.

Hell, with the Wii, developers were reluctant to truly jump in and forego the markets of the PC, 360 and PS3, and the market had clearly spoken in a MASSIVE way that they were interested in motion gaming.

This reinforces my point. Market viability isn't the driving factor, it's developer motivation. The wii's library situation is proof that developers will target less viable platforms if that's the sort of content they truly wish to create.

Your entire argument is essentially an argument for why the Playstation 4 or Xbox One would never gain traction against their successful predecessors, btw.

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

Wow. All these companies are serious about making VR mainstream. Won't the market become sarurated before it can be properly established? I mean there isn't even one released to the masses yet.

 

[Krejlooc]

Wow. All these companies are serious about making VR mainstream. Won't the market become sarurated before it can be properly established? I mean there isn't even one released to the masses yet.

They're all working towards a degree of interoperability.

 

[tokyostomp]

VR is going to crash just like 3D [TVs]

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

I hope and prey that shoddy "me too" attempts by the usual suspects doesn't sour the general public on VR.

I think this is exactly what it is

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

They're all working towards a degree of interoperability.

I guess but all of these companies arw trowing money at this tech and there isn't a proven market for it yet. It's either going to be the biggest thing since sliced bread or it will have it's time and fade away like 3D seems to be doing.

 

[Krejlooc]

I guess but all of these companies arw trowing money at this tech and there isn't a proven market for it yet. It's either going to be the biggest thing since sliced bread or it will have it's time and fade away like 3D seems to be doing.

Or it'll follow the slow-burn technology adoption curve that every transformative technology follows. Very few things either storm out the gate or crash immediately.

 

[Sakujou]

wow, it amazes me, how fast samsung is able to react. but on the other hand, samsung lacks refinement.

they need good competitors... if they are not available, their stuff is just plain garbage.

 

[Krejlooc]

wow, it amazes me, how fast samsung is able to react. but on the other hand, samsung lacks refinement.

they need good competitors... if they are not available, their stuff is just plain garbage.

As explained, they are able to react so quickly because there is a symbiotic relationship between Samsung and Oculus (and also Samsung and Google).

This isn't a bunch of companies competing with each other, reacting to each other's movements. This is an industry essentially acting in concert to usher in a new medium. It's not a coincidence that all these VR headsets are working very similarly.

Everybody is in bed with everybody else.

 

[nynt9]

Did you try it using V1 or V2?

V2 still has the same latency issues that V1 has so it doesn't matter, we have access to both though.

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

Or it'll follow the slow-burn technology adoption curve that every transformative technology follows. Very few things either storm out the gate or crash immediately.

True. I mean if you look at HD TVs or Blu-Ray. Those electronics were expensive at first and took time to become mainstream but it's everyday technology now that the prices have come down over the years. It's really going to come down to price and the companies to give consumers compelling reasons to invest in the technology.

 

[valkillmore]

Fookin-A mate VR! Unbelievably excited.

 

[Krejlooc]

True. I mean if you look at HD TVs or Blu-Ray. Those electeonics were expensive at first and took time to become mainstream but it's everyday technology now that the prices have come down over the years. It's really going to come down to price and the companies to give consumers compelling reasons to invest in the technology.

Price will fall naturally as technology improves. This technology improving isn't wholely dependent on VR, either. It's actually the cell phone industry that powers the VR industry. Unless the cell phone market collapses, the entry barrier for VR will continue to fall in price.

I don't compare it to TVs or blu-ray, I compare it to hardware 3D acceleration, because this technology shares quite a bit in common. An Nvidia NV1 diamond edge 3D back in 1995 would have cost like $1500. Today the average $20 burner phone can pump out visuals that blow the NV1 away.

 

[Soi-Fong]

I'm interested in the pricing. Hopefully, not too high. I can see this being useful in the plane or something of the sort.

 

[serversurfer]

I'd still like to know how they plan to do head tracking without an external observer. Are we close to markerless, inside-out tracking that can run cheaply enough on a cell phone? If so, why are Sony and Oculus using external cameras?

 

[akachan ningen]

Why would you want to see the outside world?

 

[Krejlooc]

I'd still like to know how they plan to do head tracking without an external observer. Are we close to markerless, inside-out tracking that can run cheaply enough on a cell phone? If so, why are Sony and Oculus using external cameras?

John Carmack has been working on markerless inside-out positional tracking for a long while now. The concept has been discussed numerous time: An IR Laser is passed through a prism to spread IR dots around the room for an inside-out camera to track.

So they've been working on this for a while, discussing their ideas about markerless tracking to anybody who'd listen, when suddenly this post from Palmer Luckey surfaces:

http://laserpointerforums.com/f44/360-degree-dot-pattern-projector-help-87475.html

ho ho ho, wonder what that could be??

long story short: markerless tracking is already a thing. Why does DK2 have outside-in tracking? Because it's not the latest dev kit. CV1 will likely have markerless tracking. The way you achieve markerless tracking can also be accomplished by any sort of cell phone, too.

Why would you want to see the outside world?

So did you miss the big button on the headset labeled "See through button"?

 

[serversurfer]

long story short: markerless tracking is already a thing. Why does DK2 have outside-in tracking? Because it's not the latest dev kit. CV1 will likely have markerless tracking. The way you achieve markerless tracking can also be accomplished by any sort of cell phone, too.

Interesting. I assume the laser will be head-mounted? If so, wouldn't your dots be moving all over the room as you turned your head, or is that the whole idea? I thought you'd want static dots so you can deduce the position of the camera relative to said dots. Is the tracking achieved by watching the dots play over the various surfaces in the room? =/

If they're really working on an "all-in-one" solution like this, why are they dicking around with external cameras at all, and why are they stressing "the seated experience," and why did Palmer basically say, "We haven't officially settled on camera tracking, but yeah, it's gonna be a camera because it's really cheap and effective," at CES? Because this will technically be camera-based, and he was trying to throw Sony off their scent? =/

 

[Krejlooc]

Interesting. I assume the laser will be head-mounted? If so, wouldn't your dots be moving all over the room as you turned your head, or is that the whole idea? I thought you'd want static dots so you can deduce the position of the camera relative to said dots. Is the tracking achieved by watching the dots play over the various surfaces in the room? =/

If they're really working on an "all-in-one" solution like this, why are they dicking around with external cameras at all, and why are they stressing "the seated experience," and why did Palmer basically say, "We haven't officially settled on camera tracking, but yeah, it's gonna be a camera because it's really cheap and effective," at CES? Because this will technically be camera-based, and he was trying to throw Sony off their scent? =/

They dick about with external cameras because they haven't yet finalized their inside-out tracking design. They clearly have the concept down, but who knows how far off the execution is. Valve's SDD demo used inside out tracking, they presumably wanted devs to begin working with positional tracking. Outside-in tracking is the same concept in reverse, so it'd be ideal to give devs this solution to work with early, while they finish their inside-out design.

Inside-out tracking and outside-in tracking both use cameras, the difference is where the camera is located on the headset. So by saying, yes, we're using a camera, they weren't locking themselves in to inside-out or outside-in tracking specifically. Sony is using outside-in tracking, it wouldn't be difficult for them to switch to inside-out.

I think the seated experience stuff is just liability issues, plus the idea that one needs to walk before they run. I don't think the average person (or even enthusiast) could strap on a bunch of tech and instantly be ready to traverse VR as though it was this world.

 

[serversurfer]

They dick about with external cameras because they haven't yet finalized their inside-out tracking design. They clearly have the concept down, but who knows how far off the execution is. Valve's SDD demo used inside out tracking, they presumably wanted devs to begin working with positional tracking. Outside-in tracking is the same concept in reverse, so it'd be ideal to give devs this solution to work with early, while they finish their inside-out design.

Inside-out tracking and outside-in tracking both use cameras, the difference is where the camera is located on the headset. So by saying, yes, we're using a camera, they weren't locking themselves in to inside-out or outside-in tracking specifically. Sony is using outside-in tracking, it wouldn't be difficult for them to switch to inside-out.

Fair enough, but I still don't understand how the laser-based tracking will work. Don't the projected dots need to be static, or do you determine the position of the camera based on how the dots move around the environment?

 

[TAJ]

Bluray dont need to unseat DVD though.

A good thing, too, since it's somehow still getting its ass kicked by DVD after over eight years.
It makes me sad, but so far the only real downside is that catalog Blu-ray releases are increasingly coming from expensive boutique publishers instead of straight from the studios.

 

[VindicatorZ]

I too find it a little surprising how many people can't grasp what VR actually is. The moment I heard VR I knew exactly what that entailed. Many people don't understand it and resort to calling it a gimmick . When I tried the Oculus for the very first time this past weekend at a convention , it met all my expectations. Terrible resolution and low field of view, didn't matter, I was INSIDE of Technolust. I was looking at skyscrapers thousands of feet tall with flying cars whizzing by. My memory of it was of a place I visited, not even of a videogame. And this was in a loud convention setting on shitty DK1. I know how great this will be.

Anyway, I suppose they will sell a chargeable battery for the phone to give you some extra hours while playing. This will be great for watching movies in bed or on an airplane , but on a huge personal IMAX screen. Fantastic.

 

[Kaako]

Hell yes, more competition, more big players in the game! Let's goooooo VR movement.

 

[fvng]

love it, good.. the more the better it means developers will incorporate the tech in their games which means it won't be fad technology

 

[elektrixx]

Watch Nintendo put out a kaleidoscope.

 

[Seanspeed]

"We're clearly not a hardware company." -Mark Zuckerberg

I'm not surprised Oculus/Facebook are trying to get everyone else to make the hardware. I don't think Zuckerberg has any particular interest in making or selling hardware. He'd much rather let another company deal with those headaches, and make money on micro-transactions in whatever Facebook's version of Home turns out to be.

I'm sure there will be a CV1, simply because we were promised one, but I won't be surprised if it turns out to merely be a Samsung/Sony/LG/whoever product based on a reference design, with a "Rift by Oculus" logo slapped on the side. I'd be amazed if there's ever a CV2, unless those "by Oculus" stickers actually help to move units.

Facebook isn't a hardware company.

Oculus is and its a major part of what they're trying to do.

 

[serversurfer]

Facebook isn't a hardware company.

Oculus is and its a major part of what they're trying to do.

Now that you mention it, is Oculus still a separate company? People still call Palmer the CEO, but is Oculus a wholly owned subsidiary, or just a department at Facebook? Is he still a CEO, or is he now the VP of VR at Facebook?

Regardless, Zuckerberg's comments seemed to be more along the lines of, "This is the plan," rather than, "This is my plan; I have no idea what Oculus intend to do." Whatever his current status, I doubt Palmer has the authority to say, "I don't care if we're not a hardware company; we're making headsets anyway, so fuck you, Mark."

 

[PGamer]

Now that you mention it, is Oculus still a separate company? People still call Palmer the CEO, but is Oculus a wholly owned subsidiary, or just a department at Facebook? Is he still a CEO, or is he now the VP of VR at Facebook?

Regardless, Zuckerberg's comments seemed to be more along the lines of, "This is the plan," rather than, "This is my plan; I have no idea what Oculus intend to do." Whatever his current status, I doubt Palmer has the authority to say, "I don't care if we're not a hardware company; we're making headsets anyway, so fuck you, Mark."

Palmer isn't CEO, he's credited as the founder of Oculus VR. Brendan Iribe is CEO. I'm not sure what the actual business structure is in relation to Facebook.

 

[serversurfer]

Palmer isn't CEO, he's credited as the founder of Oculus VR. Brendan Iribe is CEO.

Oh, right. I actually knew that. Sorry, I just read a GI.biz article where they were referring to him as the CEO, and it seems to be a fairly common mistake, even post-acquisition.

I'm not sure what the actual business structure is in relation to Facebook.

Me either. I'm just not sure where the "Who cares about Facebook? Oculus can do whatever they want." mentality is coming from. Is it just wishful thinking, or has there been some official statement of autonomy?