Valve's goal for VR - surpassing "immersion" with true presence inside gameworld

ido

Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,229
0
0
35
Mississippi
I don't understand the current hype with VR. To me, it seems like another "3D" gimmick. And, people complained about how heavy and uncomfortable the 3D glasses are. VR headsets are at least 10X worst comparably. Until VR headsets get down to at least 3D glasses size, it will be going nowhere.
Have you ever tried an Oculus Rift?
 

knitoe

Member
Feb 22, 2006
8,117
0
1,145
Don't knock it until you've tried it dude. 3D on a flat screen is a gimmick. It doesn't feel natural, its just a fun little effect that gets old pretty quick. VR is not like that at all.
VR will blow many mind.
First time using, I am sure will blow my mind, but after a few hours and it starts hurting my head/neck/body, I can probably live without.
 

Mister0079

Member
Feb 9, 2012
1,121
0
0
25
once porn games come out with full VR support you're going to have a massive drop in birth rate around the world except for third world countries
 

spekkeh

Banned
Apr 18, 2011
14,647
0
0
www.neogaf.com
First time using, I am sure will blow my mind, but after a few hours and it starts hurting my head/neck/body, I can probably live without.
I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Jun 16, 2013
8,576
0
0


I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
Stupid, stupid comment. Oculus Rift is not something that happened last decade, or the decade before that. Your avatar suits your comment well.

once porn games come out with full VR support you're going to have a massive drop in birth rate around the world except for third world countries
No need for VR for that lol.
 

ido

Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,229
0
0
35
Mississippi
First time using, I am sure will blow my mind, but after a few hours and it starts hurting my head/neck/body, I can probably live without.
I really don't understand this train of thought.

Literally everyone(unless someone can show me differently) that has tried the latest low persistence VR demos, has came back in awe. This is going to be the beginning of something really, really amazing. I don't get why people think being able to immerse yourself in another world is a gimmick.
 

Des0lar

will learn eventually
May 31, 2007
8,144
0
0
First time using, I am sure will blow my mind, but after a few hours and it starts hurting my head/neck/body, I can probably live without.
Many people trying it out stated that it didn't feel uncomfortable even after 30min-1h of playstime. And that's still the prototypes which are not 100% geared to be comfortable.

I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
This is especially ridiculous since it's not like we regressed in computational power.
Invoking VR from 10 or 20 years ago is like comparing a radio to a TV
 

Durante

Member
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
Nah, that's not a good argument. This time around its actually feasible to deliver good VR in a consumer product. That people tried before when the technology wasn't remotely ready only goes to show how incredibly enticing the concept is.
 

ido

Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,229
0
0
35
Mississippi
I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
What are the main problems?

Resolution and FOV were the big problems in the 90's. Also, decent headtracking and lack of positional tracking.

These problems have been fixed.
 

Atrophis

Member
Sep 24, 2007
5,203
0
0
Notts, UK
I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
I remember the VR hype when I was a kid over 20 years ago. My town even had a VR arcade centre. There has been no real prospect of a consumer VR device before and VR back then does not compare in any way to what we can do now.

Problems such as quality of tracking, size and weight of the device, resolution, latency, optics etc have now pretty much have been solved which is why people are taking VR very seriously for the first time.
 

ScepticMatt

Member
May 14, 2011
4,091
1
565
Zurich
I remember trying a VR demo in the 90s where you were suspended in mid air - simulating a zero G experience.
After 10 minutes I got so sick and disoriented I couldn't stand for a while.
 

GraveHorizon

poop meter feature creep
Nov 28, 2011
3,370
0
0
Albany, OR
I'm not too knowledgeable on planes, but the history of flight is like videogames, and the Oculus Rift is like the first jet engine being developed. The world of videogames (and more) is going to change, not tomorrow or next month or possibly even next year, but it's going to change because of VR and it's going to be big. Every time I hear someone say it's not going to happen or they don't see how it's going to work is like hearing someone in the past say high-speed mass air travel will never catch on.

When will the groinal attachment be ready?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=73799908&postcount=309
 

Chezzymann

Member
Feb 18, 2013
15,473
2
490
In order for true immersion you'd have to control the game with your mind. Controllers kinda break it and they don't offer the same fluidity of movement,
 

spekkeh

Banned
Apr 18, 2011
14,647
0
0
www.neogaf.com
What are the main problems?

Resolution and FOV were the big problems in the 90's. Also, decent headtracking and lack of positional tracking.

These problems have been fixed.
Simulator sickness, eye-strain, anti-socialness and the fact that a lot of people find complete immersion without the possibility to look away to be very unpleasant.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
0
0
Simulator sickness, eye-strain, anti-socialness and the fact that a lot of people find complete immersion without the possibility to look away to be very unpleasant.
Simulator sickness is basically solved. Eye strain is a non issue with these.

Anti-socialness? Don't understand that. It wont be 'living room fun with friends' at first, but it'll come. There's also plenty of potential in multiplayer experiences that go well beyond what we have now.

As for the many people who find complete immersion without the possibility to look away to be unpleasant, I think you just pulled that out your ass to pad your argument. Never heard that complaint before. Not as if many people have tried out VR before, ya know?
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,047
1
0
1920x1080p is on target for day 1 acceptable VR.
Each eye will receive 960x1080 = 1 036 800pixels (vs 1 000 000 which is Valve goal).

PS4 is just above threshold for acceptable VR.
I see that you have no idea what you are talking about. Oculus Rift lenses are focused on small part of screen.
http://martincaine.com/files/images/2013-06-23_oculus_rift_vorpx_witch.jpg

As you can see, a lot of pixels [black ones] are wasted. Users can even see them, so VorpX decided to put a black overlay over them.


Oculus Rift with its current lenses would need to have 1600p screen [or a little better] to provide resolution that Valve wants.
 

spekkeh

Banned
Apr 18, 2011
14,647
0
0
www.neogaf.com
Simulator sickness is basically solved. Eye strain is a non issue with these.
Yes, according to the company selling the thing apparently the yet to be revealed version remedies what has been dogging billions of dollars spend on military grade VR forever. I need to see the receipts.
Anti-socialness? Don't understand that. It wont be 'living room fun with friends' at first, but it'll come. There's also plenty of potential in multiplayer experiences that go well beyond what we have now.
I would be annoyed if my wife spent more than thirty minutes with an HMD on next to me, she'd be annoyed with me a lot faster. This stuff is for attic use only. Nothing wrong with that, but it severely limits uptake.
As for the many people who find complete immersion without the possibility to look away to be unpleasant, I think you just pulled that out your ass to pad your argument. Never heard that complaint before. Not as if many people have tried out VR before, ya know?
This is well known in the scientific community.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,047
1
0
I think that there is a good chance that later in this year Oculus will release Devkit #2, and delay consumer version to 2015 just to optimize everything right.

If this happens, Sony will have a window of opportunity to jump in with their design.
 
Feb 24, 2008
9,648
0
0
I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
Not true. There wasn't any VR crazy in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s or the 00s, only in the 90s. A single time = it happens every decade! And in 20 years things have changed.
 

OldAsUrSock

Banned
Apr 1, 2012
5,458
0
0
Awesomeville
I'm in the same boat. People's memories are so short. This VR craze happens every decade, but the main problems never disappear.
It has been a little more than two decades since the last VR craze. We are starting to get the tech that makes this feasible. I think for something like a NerveGear there will need to be more research that need to be done regarding our brains.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,047
1
0
Heavily rumored VR device based on the Oculus Rift design [fisheye lenses, one or two screens, anti-fisheye game rendering].

"with true presence inside gameworld"

This is where I draw the line. If it ever goes this far I'll stop playing games.
Not all games are aimed to provide 1st person experience. You will never mistaken Japanese VR shoot-em-ups with maids as end bosses for a reality. :D At least I hope you wont.
 

Man

Member
Sep 27, 2009
11,920
0
0
I see that you have no idea what you are talking about. Oculus Rift lenses are focused on small part of screen.
http://martincaine.com/files/images/2013-06-23_oculus_rift_vorpx_witch.jpg

As you can see, a lot of pixels [black ones] are wasted. Users can even see them, so VorpX decided to put a black overlay over them.


Oculus Rift with its current lenses would need to have 1600p screen [or a little better] to provide resolution that Valve wants.
That beta seems way off, here's official software:

http://www.p1xelcoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Oculus_Tuscany_Demo_025.png
 

Chettlar

Banned
Dec 4, 2013
3,231
0
0
Conspiracy theory time.

Valve is designing HL3 with ful VR in mind. Its non-VR version will be a shell of the real game.

Valve says VR will have its doom moment in 2015 because Valve is in fact revealing or releasing its doom equivalent in 2015 for VR (read HL3).
I completely agree with this assesment, and I think it sounds reasonable.

I fully expect a 3rd entry into one of Valves main first person shooters (Half-Life, Portal, and Left4dead) before 2020.
 
Dec 9, 2009
648
0
0
North Carolina
VR seems neat, but I am still skeptical. I do not doubt that this is a cool technology or that people's initial reactions to it are usually positive, just not convinced yet that this is a way that I'll want to play my video games on a regular basis for hours at a time, especially once the novelty of it wears off.
 

spekkeh

Banned
Apr 18, 2011
14,647
0
0
www.neogaf.com
Not true. There wasn't any VR crazy in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s or the 00s, only in the 90s. A single time = it happens every decade! And in 20 years things have changed.
Okay so I might have exaggerated a bit :p. But research on VR resurged during the 00s and then declined as well nearing the 10s. (it's now mostly used for healthcare only)

Heavily rumored VR device based on the Oculus Rift design [fisheye lenses, one or two screens, anti-fisheye game rendering].
Yeah, I think if Sony is working on a VR, it's for Sony Medical. Kaz' vision expounding during his last keynote made it pretty clear VR doesn't really fit into their idea of CE in the living room.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
0
0
Yes, according to the company selling the thing apparently the yet to be revealed version remedies what has been dogging billions of dollars spend on military grade VR forever. I need to see the receipts.
According to people who have actually played it.

I would be annoyed if my wife spent more than thirty minutes with an HMD on next to me, she'd be annoyed with me a lot faster. This stuff is for attic use only. Nothing wrong with that, but it severely limits uptake.
Attic use only? C'mon.

This is well known in the scientific community.
Sure man.

Safe to say that nothing will convince you that this tech is for real. Live in the past if you like.
 

SneakyStephan

Banned
Jan 23, 2011
18,402
0
0
they’re freely sharing their research with a number of companies who will bring vr to the masses, she they believe oculus will lead the revolution.
Patent trolls everwhere shriek loudly in agony as they hang upside down in their dungeon


A lot of the things on that slide are projected to be in OR's model in 2014.

1Kx1K per eye = 2million pixels = 1080p, which is the minimum OR is targeting (albeit in one panel - I don't know if there's a quality difference per eye in having 2 720p panels vs 1 1080p)
sub-20ms latency is on the cards for OR
3ms pixel persistance = what OR showed in Crystal Cove?
110-degree FOV = OR's diagonal FOV

I guess tracking and optics quality are a somewhat fuzzier issue though.

edit - a virtual screen for non-VR games via Steam is great
are you a tv salesman? please don't do this (the bolded)
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,047
1
0
Yeah, I think if Sony is working on a VR, it's for Sony Medical. Kaz' vision expounding during his last keynote made it pretty clear VR doesn't really fit into their idea of CE in the living room.
We already had rumors of Rift-esqeue device from Sony that used DriveClub and Super Stardust HD games.

For medical uses, Sony is making variation of HMZ line. They already showcased it.
 

scitek

Member
Aug 23, 2005
17,119
4
1,230
El Paso, TX
twitch.tv
I don't understand the current hype with VR. To me, it seems like another "3D" gimmick. And, people complained about how heavy and uncomfortable the 3D glasses are. VR headsets are at least 10X worst comparably. Until VR headsets get down to at least 3D glasses size, it will be going nowhere.
Well, you see, the problem 3D has is that it sucks.
 

char0n

Member
May 10, 2005
561
0
0
North Potomac, MD
I'm all for having good goals as long as it doesn't make OR style VR a "Valve-time" proposition. I'd actually like to be able to buy/use Crystal Cove level gear within the next year and have it officially supported in new games with incremental hardware improvements every couple years rather than have to wait 5+ years for it to be "just right".
 

antikythera

Banned
Apr 23, 2012
214
0
0
This concept is at least thirty years old and proven to be induced even by reading a book.
Regular screens, face-strapped screens, and even books all project virtual realities. I'm not sure what defines "VR" anyway except that it's computer-simulated. Is there any clear line that separates VR from the video games we're used to? The fact that the screen is strapped to your face like goggles? This term "VR" is being used all wrong.
 

ido

Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,229
0
0
35
Mississippi
Regular screens, face-strapped screens, and even books all project virtual realities. I'm not sure what defines "VR" anyway except that it's computer-simulated. Is there any clear line that separates VR from the video games we're used to? The fact that the screen is strapped to your face like goggles? This term "VR" is being used all wrong.
It's like Palmer said...

The term "Virtual Reality" was coined in the 80s by Jaron Lanier, and was used to describe the HMD and dataglove systems his company (VPL Research) sold. It has been used that way ever since.
Personally, I treat VR as an umbrella term that covers everything from the lowest end HMDs to direct neural interfaces, doing anything else would require redefining what VR means. You are definitely right that the Rift is only a single fairly primitive part of the VR experience, we have a long way to go before we have Matrix-quality simulations. The best we can do is make clear what level of VR we have today, and what we can look forward to in the future.
 

Freeman

Banned
Aug 23, 2013
5,612
0
0
Conspiracy theory time.

Valve is designing HL3 with ful VR in mind. Its non-VR version will be a shell of the real game.

Valve says VR will have its doom moment in 2015 because Valve is in fact revealing or releasing its doom equivalent in 2015 for VR (read HL3).
Actually I think VR is the only venue where HL3 can actually happen and wow us like HL and HL2 did. HL3 as one of the first AAA VR exclusive games would be up to the franchise standards.
 

Kieli

Member
Aug 11, 2013
8,730
0
395
I don't think VR needs to be limited to the first-person perspective.

Just the idea of allowing my entire field of view to be swallowed by the game screen is immersive enough to warrant a purchase. It'd be like playing on an infinitely large screen without any distractions on my periphery taking me out of the experience.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
0
0
Actually I think VR is the only venue where HL3 can actually happen and wow us like HL and HL2 did. HL3 as one of the first AAA VR exclusive games would be up to the franchise standards.
I'm usually the last to board conspiracy trains, but I like this theory a lot.

It would make a lot of sense for Valve to hold off on HL3 til the Oculus Rift comes out and then release it together to have that killer app there. Valve seem to be very heavily involved in the VR movement and are making lots of moves to further the cause, even investing their own money into research for the sake of the betterment of the hardware and having a large portion of their 'Dev Days' conference dedicated to VR to try and buzz up excitement amount the development community. I think they're very emotionally invested in things and they are smart enough to know that if HL3 was built with VR in mind(not VR exclusive, though), it would sell hotcakes and get the entire gaming establishment jumping up and down in excitement, sending long-lasting shockwaves throughout the industry as a result.

It just makes so much sense.

I don't think VR needs to be limited to the first-person perspective.

Just the idea of allowing my entire field of view to be swallowed by the game screen is immersive enough to warrant a purchase. It'd be like playing on an infinitely large screen without any distractions on my periphery taking me out of the experience.
Without a doubt. VR is *not* limited to first person experiences. Only close-minded people or those without a sense of imagination think it is.
 

ido

Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,229
0
0
35
Mississippi
I think it makes sense to assume Valve is working on HL3 for VR. It would really drive people to buying a consumer Rift, and other devs would surely follow the success.

Even more conspiracy time: what if Oculus and Valve are working together to insure that the CK1 and HL3 are released at the same time? People would be jumping out of windows to get a Rift.
 

antikythera

Banned
Apr 23, 2012
214
0
0
The term "Virtual Reality" was coined in the 80s by Jaron Lanier, and was used to describe the HMD and dataglove systems his company (VPL Research) sold. It has been used that way ever since.
Wikipedia:
The origin of the term "virtual reality" can be traced back to the French playwright, poet, actor, and director Antonin Artaud. In his seminal book The Theatre and Its Double (1938), Artaud described theatre as "la réalité virtuelle".
Better to call HMDs what they are: HMDs. VR is a nonsense marketing buzzword.
 

spekkeh

Banned
Apr 18, 2011
14,647
0
0
www.neogaf.com
According to people who have actually played it.
Like these people?
http://martincaine.com/gaming/day_one_with_the_oculus_rift_nausea
http://killscreendaily.com/articles/articles/what-kind-game-will-require-oculus-rift/
Attic use only? C'mon.
I'll grant you basement.
Sure man.
You surmised that I pulled this out of my ass. I didn't. I'm a scientist that's done research on both presence and cybersickness. (and saying it's alleviated by reducing latency is frankly pretty lolworthy to me; even if all usability gripes are diminished you're still left with vection induced by peripheral vision (being shit out of luck if you're a woman), and proprioceptive incongruence. The only thing strongly reducing cybersickness in this sense is attenuation, but who wants to attenuate to vomiting?)

In any case, as such I had quite a few talks with researchers in the HMD field--mind you this was six years ago so ancient history to you but I think the principle holds, and they told me that many people liked HMDs less than other virtual reality forms also because of the anxiety that you were effectively blind to the outside world. It's not unlike putting your bed's headboard towards the door or sitting with your head facing the wall and your back towards a crowd of people, exposing yourself to attack. There's security in being able to glance away that you lose when immersing yourself completely. For some, this anxiety shifts into claustrophobia.

Of course people didn't report this from the Oculus Rift exposure, because they are self-selected tech enthusiasts.

And maybe all gamers are, making my point moot, and not creating a barrier for mainstream gamer appeal. Or also because people adapt to it very fast, and want to adapt to it because of positive word of mouth. For now at least, I remain a lot more skeptic than the average tech enthusiast raving about the thing.
Safe to say that nothing will convince you that this tech is for real. Live in the past if you like.
Safe to say nothing will convince you that this tech isn't for real blabla.
 

ido

Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,229
0
0
35
Mississippi
Wikipedia:


Better to call HMDs what they are: HMDs. VR is a nonsense marketing buzzword.
Despite a french phrase used in a one-off reference, the term VR wasn't popularized or really used until the 80's as we use it today.

HMD is the hardware, and VR is the experience.