Oculus Rift Pre-Orders to Open on January 6(oculus.com)
oculus.com
Oculus Rift Pre-Orders to Open on January 6
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/oculus-rift-pre-orders-to-open-on-jan-6/
211 comments
I've played with a DK2. It was cool. But reasons not to be super-excited are:
1. Hardware requirements are steep (GTX 970 minimum), so plenty of hardware -- including plenty of hardware that's good for high-end gaming today -- won't be good enough for this.
2. Only Windows support. No compatibility with Linux, SteamOS, or even OSX means that the techie enthusiasts who'd play with it as a tech toy are going to be less interested.
3. But biggest of all: The games aren't there. It's become very clear, both from playing with the DK2, and listening to presentations by Valve and Oculus people, that VR games can't just be regular games with VR bolted on. "Skyrim, but with VR" sounds cool, and makes for a cool five-minute demo, but will just make you sick and be unsatisfying in the long term.
VR games need to be designed for VR in a really fundamental way. It's not clear that there are any interesting games that do this, or that there's a lot of effort going toward making games like this.
If this were a product that were coming out from Nintendo, I'd be confident that they had a good idea about how to adapt their franchises to take advantage of VR in a really cool way, and that there'd be at least a handful of games that made it an absolute must-have. But from Facebook... well, they're a tech company, not a gaming company, so they're depending on someone else to make the games that will justify this thing. Maybe that'll work in the long term, but right now, it doesn't seem like there's any must-have VR game.
Add that all up, and this is a product that won't appeal to most gamers yet, and won't appeal to a lot of tech geeks due to the Windows focus, so... yeah.
1. Hardware requirements are steep (GTX 970 minimum), so plenty of hardware -- including plenty of hardware that's good for high-end gaming today -- won't be good enough for this.
2. Only Windows support. No compatibility with Linux, SteamOS, or even OSX means that the techie enthusiasts who'd play with it as a tech toy are going to be less interested.
3. But biggest of all: The games aren't there. It's become very clear, both from playing with the DK2, and listening to presentations by Valve and Oculus people, that VR games can't just be regular games with VR bolted on. "Skyrim, but with VR" sounds cool, and makes for a cool five-minute demo, but will just make you sick and be unsatisfying in the long term.
VR games need to be designed for VR in a really fundamental way. It's not clear that there are any interesting games that do this, or that there's a lot of effort going toward making games like this.
If this were a product that were coming out from Nintendo, I'd be confident that they had a good idea about how to adapt their franchises to take advantage of VR in a really cool way, and that there'd be at least a handful of games that made it an absolute must-have. But from Facebook... well, they're a tech company, not a gaming company, so they're depending on someone else to make the games that will justify this thing. Maybe that'll work in the long term, but right now, it doesn't seem like there's any must-have VR game.
Add that all up, and this is a product that won't appeal to most gamers yet, and won't appeal to a lot of tech geeks due to the Windows focus, so... yeah.
The hardware requirements are a marketing gimmick. They aren't "requirements". What works in AAA games to make "good" looking graphics often fundamentally breaks down in VR anyway. It's no different of an equation than we've ever had: set your polygon budget and stick to it. Compelling experiences will be had on lesser hardware. There is a lot more to the world than Call of Halo 15.
Or not. Give it a year and it won't matter. Today's top-of-the-line tech is tomorrows middle-of-the-road. And if you saturate the market in the first year, who will you sell to then?
There are a lot more tech geeks on Windows than you think. Get out of your bubble sometime and you might see that there are probably more of us than there are of you.
The games aren't there? The games aren't where? Where is this "there" you're talking about? I keep hearing people talk about this "there", but I've been playing games in VR for over a year now and been enjoying the heck out of myself. I think you mean to say "the games are here already, and only going to get better".
Or not. Give it a year and it won't matter. Today's top-of-the-line tech is tomorrows middle-of-the-road. And if you saturate the market in the first year, who will you sell to then?
There are a lot more tech geeks on Windows than you think. Get out of your bubble sometime and you might see that there are probably more of us than there are of you.
The games aren't there? The games aren't where? Where is this "there" you're talking about? I keep hearing people talk about this "there", but I've been playing games in VR for over a year now and been enjoying the heck out of myself. I think you mean to say "the games are here already, and only going to get better".
The hardware requirements are based on the 90 FPS requirement for good feeling VR. That extra 5ms of savings is quite difficult in a lot of experiences. And even without all the "good" looking graphics requires quite a serious amount of rendering hardware to get consistent, which is very important.
You're not going to get the standard AAA experience level graphics in VR, you're talking about a ~20ms difference in render time, with twice the amount of view to render (In polygon processing at least) But good VR is very sensitive to hardware performance.
You're not going to get the standard AAA experience level graphics in VR, you're talking about a ~20ms difference in render time, with twice the amount of view to render (In polygon processing at least) But good VR is very sensitive to hardware performance.
>> 90 FPS requirement for good feeling VR
This is not a requirement. It's a nice-to-have. 60fps is good enough for most people. 75fps is good enough for the vast majority of people. And asynchronous timewarp largely makes the issue moot, too.
Regardless, Microsoft bought Mojang for $2.5 billion dollars. Zynga has a market cap of $2.4 billion. I think the era of AAA games like Call of Duty being your main cash-cow are over.
You don't need to spend anywhere near all of your cycles to make a good VR experience.
This is not a requirement. It's a nice-to-have. 60fps is good enough for most people. 75fps is good enough for the vast majority of people. And asynchronous timewarp largely makes the issue moot, too.
Regardless, Microsoft bought Mojang for $2.5 billion dollars. Zynga has a market cap of $2.4 billion. I think the era of AAA games like Call of Duty being your main cash-cow are over.
You don't need to spend anywhere near all of your cycles to make a good VR experience.
[deleted]
Actually, Elder Scrolls Online on the DK2, using Vorpx, is a lot of fun. It's not perfect, but it's much cooler than the game without it, and I've not had any sickness in it.
1) Yep. But not bad for a first generation product. Already plenty of guides about building a VR ready computer for <$1000.
2) Only windows. Agreed. But I'm glad they did so they could get one platform dialed in instead of chasing multiple rabbits. For now.
3) Games - copying part of this - do yourself a favor and try with Elite Dangerous or Assetto Corsa. And gaming doesn't scratch the service in terms of application - training, social interaction, SEX, therapy, etc, etc.
2) Only windows. Agreed. But I'm glad they did so they could get one platform dialed in instead of chasing multiple rabbits. For now.
3) Games - copying part of this - do yourself a favor and try with Elite Dangerous or Assetto Corsa. And gaming doesn't scratch the service in terms of application - training, social interaction, SEX, therapy, etc, etc.
So part of what I'm saying is that 1 & 2 cancel themselves out. The people who would drop $1500 ($1K computer plus maybe $500 VR headset) on a first-gen thing are more likely to be the early-adopter types who are less interested in a Windows-only device.
As for 3: I played Elite for a bit. And then quit when I got motion-sick. I'm not particularly motion-sensitive, but DK2 got me there pretty quickly.
Maybe the retail one is better in ways that wouldn't make me sick in that case, but from what Valve people have been saying, the only reliable way to get rid of the sickness is to remove the disconnect between not-moving and seeming-to-move, aka make games that involve only your real-world motion.
If that's the case, it implies that what we need are radically different games than what we have. So I'd either want to see those games, or see some proof that you can do Elite-style gaming with no motion sickness even when playing for hours.
As for 3: I played Elite for a bit. And then quit when I got motion-sick. I'm not particularly motion-sensitive, but DK2 got me there pretty quickly.
Maybe the retail one is better in ways that wouldn't make me sick in that case, but from what Valve people have been saying, the only reliable way to get rid of the sickness is to remove the disconnect between not-moving and seeming-to-move, aka make games that involve only your real-world motion.
If that's the case, it implies that what we need are radically different games than what we have. So I'd either want to see those games, or see some proof that you can do Elite-style gaming with no motion sickness even when playing for hours.
> The people who would drop $1500 ... on a first-gen thing are more likely to be the early-adopter types who are less interested in a Windows-only device.
I feel pretty confident in saying that the people who spend big bucks on computer gaming are mostly not giving two shits about Linux while they do it. SteamOS and general Linux gaming is pretty decent these days but still... if you are a hardcore gamer, odds are overwhelming that you are running Windows.
I feel pretty confident in saying that the people who spend big bucks on computer gaming are mostly not giving two shits about Linux while they do it. SteamOS and general Linux gaming is pretty decent these days but still... if you are a hardcore gamer, odds are overwhelming that you are running Windows.
The biggest reason of all though(and what drives all technology)... porn. This will change porn forever and it will become a staple in homes solely for that fact.
There is some debate about whether porn will really drive VR technology.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/does-porn-still-ha...
I also recall reading a different article (can't find it now and don't want to do too much Google searching at work for it) about how almost all the most trafficked porn sites are owned by a single entity now. From what I remember of the article, it posited that their technology has fallen behind and they have little incentive to keep pushing tech forward given the razor thin margins they have on operating the sites.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/does-porn-still-ha...
I also recall reading a different article (can't find it now and don't want to do too much Google searching at work for it) about how almost all the most trafficked porn sites are owned by a single entity now. From what I remember of the article, it posited that their technology has fallen behind and they have little incentive to keep pushing tech forward given the razor thin margins they have on operating the sites.
porn games would be better than 360° videos anyway, so not much of a loss on that front...
The games issue definitely seems like a chicken and egg problem though. Games are really expensive (perhaps even more so with this new paradigm), and it's hard for them to know what the market adoption for the platform will be until it actually hits the market at full price.
Oculus funded a bunch of games studios in order to bust the chicken and egg problem. Someone on reddit compiled a list of all of the games expected to come out. [1]
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/wiki/compatible_games
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/wiki/compatible_games
3. Games aren't there? Oculus funded a bunch of games studios and there are many studios investing themselves. Someone on reddit compiled a list of all of the games expected to come out. [1]
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/wiki/compatible_games
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/wiki/compatible_games
Am I the only one that's still a little skeptical? I'm sure that it's a great technology and we will see interesting things come out of it, but statements like this
> Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine.
kind of just make me roll my eyes. We've been hearing things like that for decades. Is it really going to blur the lines of reality? You'll still be sitting a chair with a machine strapped to your face. People also think it will change video games forever, but I honestly don't see how. It improves immersion, but for me, immersion isn't even on the top 10 list of things that I care about in games.
Feel free to disagree, but I'm just saying that people are really hyping this thing up.
> Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine.
kind of just make me roll my eyes. We've been hearing things like that for decades. Is it really going to blur the lines of reality? You'll still be sitting a chair with a machine strapped to your face. People also think it will change video games forever, but I honestly don't see how. It improves immersion, but for me, immersion isn't even on the top 10 list of things that I care about in games.
Feel free to disagree, but I'm just saying that people are really hyping this thing up.
This sounds like the opinion of someone who hasn't tried VR in any measure. I could be wrong, and maybe you have.
I agree that there is a ceiling of how much VR as a technology can 'blur the lines' of reality, but as someone who has a DK2 - I fully believe that VR is going to be huge in the future. It doesn't feel like you're 'sitting in a chair with a machine strapped to your face'.
I agree that there is a ceiling of how much VR as a technology can 'blur the lines' of reality, but as someone who has a DK2 - I fully believe that VR is going to be huge in the future. It doesn't feel like you're 'sitting in a chair with a machine strapped to your face'.
I tried to illustrate why I'm excited for this being the FIRST.
Just to challenge your thinking about what comes next:
> kind of just make me roll my eyes. We've been hearing things like that for decades. Is it really going to blur the lines of reality?
Tricking your vision is HUGE to changing your reality. We perceive up to 80 per cent of all impressions by means of our sight.
(1) https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
> You'll still be sitting a chair with a machine strapped to your face.
-=> Give the form factor a couple of years. Every sensor in there is being miniaturized by the day. Magic Leap (and others) are using tricks to project imagery directly onto your retina. Google's already filed
> People also think it will change video games forever, but I honestly don't see how. It improves immersion, but for me, immersion isn't even on the top 10 list of things that I care about in games.
-=> Ok I'll bite, on gaming - Go play Elite Dangerous + DK2 + Motion Sim and tell me that you don't believe you're flying in outer space. It's that good. More accessible, and I bet we see a lot of these, is VR coasters w/motion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcmQr2y5Z88 - another easy one to try is Assetto Corsa + DK2 + driving wheel.
Games are a popular idea about VR's application but doesn't scratch the service in terms of application - training, social interaction, SEX, therapy, etc, etc.
Just to challenge your thinking about what comes next:
> kind of just make me roll my eyes. We've been hearing things like that for decades. Is it really going to blur the lines of reality?
Tricking your vision is HUGE to changing your reality. We perceive up to 80 per cent of all impressions by means of our sight.
(1) https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
> You'll still be sitting a chair with a machine strapped to your face.
-=> Give the form factor a couple of years. Every sensor in there is being miniaturized by the day. Magic Leap (and others) are using tricks to project imagery directly onto your retina. Google's already filed
> People also think it will change video games forever, but I honestly don't see how. It improves immersion, but for me, immersion isn't even on the top 10 list of things that I care about in games.
-=> Ok I'll bite, on gaming - Go play Elite Dangerous + DK2 + Motion Sim and tell me that you don't believe you're flying in outer space. It's that good. More accessible, and I bet we see a lot of these, is VR coasters w/motion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcmQr2y5Z88 - another easy one to try is Assetto Corsa + DK2 + driving wheel.
Games are a popular idea about VR's application but doesn't scratch the service in terms of application - training, social interaction, SEX, therapy, etc, etc.
Indeed, games are a neat way to apply the technology, but flying a space ship in Elite Dangerous is the same on an Oculus as it would be on your monitor. The VR headset may be able to improve things like storytelling, gameplay and interaction, but I don't think I've seen how it does yet.
No, it's not.
I've said this a few times before and it's a little romanticized, but it's the difference between playing a game, and being there - in the game.
You can look up and see out of the top of your spaceship. You look to your left and the holographic display of your ship appears. You look down and you see your body, wearing a cool spacesuit. But most of all, it feels like you're piloting a ship instead of watching a ship fly around on a screen.
You can look up and see out of the top of your spaceship. You look to your left and the holographic display of your ship appears. You look down and you see your body, wearing a cool spacesuit. But most of all, it feels like you're piloting a ship instead of watching a ship fly around on a screen.
I tried the HTC set a few weeks ago when they were touring it around the country. I was very skeptical. The resolution of the headset isn't even that great.
However, the final demo (a Portal 2 derived scene) freaked me out. I felt like I was being bullied by the robot. I've had nightmares about it since, for reals.
However, the final demo (a Portal 2 derived scene) freaked me out. I felt like I was being bullied by the robot. I've had nightmares about it since, for reals.
I'm a bit skeptical, maybe because I see the potential for some cool short-term stuff, but not so much long-term stuff. I can see how I would be entertained by this concept for awhile, maybe years even, but I'm not sure it would replace a simple big screen TV in the long run.
Others are free to disagree with me here, but I've seen 2 technological concepts in entertainment/immersion that became huge in the last decade and slowly died off as people became tired of the gimmick: motion-sensors and 3D. You have a lot of people very entertained by stuff like the Wii or watching Avatar in 3D, but over time I've noticed people don't really care anymore.
VR has the same challenge as those past technologies: how do you create something truly unique with this concept? Is this like the dawn of the television, or is it just another way of watching television?
Others are free to disagree with me here, but I've seen 2 technological concepts in entertainment/immersion that became huge in the last decade and slowly died off as people became tired of the gimmick: motion-sensors and 3D. You have a lot of people very entertained by stuff like the Wii or watching Avatar in 3D, but over time I've noticed people don't really care anymore.
VR has the same challenge as those past technologies: how do you create something truly unique with this concept? Is this like the dawn of the television, or is it just another way of watching television?
> Zuck gets this to the degree that I suspect he believes Facebook & VR will be synonymous within a decade (1)
The vast majority of Facebook users has neither consoles nor PCs nor any interest in ever purchasing a peripheral in the targeted price range (even if it drops to 100USD).
I don't doubt that they can break even regarding development costs, but it won't be a cash cow.
The vast majority of Facebook users has neither consoles nor PCs nor any interest in ever purchasing a peripheral in the targeted price range (even if it drops to 100USD).
I don't doubt that they can break even regarding development costs, but it won't be a cash cow.
Yep, that's why the Gear VR has seen such huge investment from Oculus. It offers a decent VR experience with mainstream phones and a cheap(ish) accessory.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/gear-vr/
My impression is something like this is a big part of the future of the Oculus platform, and that the Rift is designed to deliver higher quality experiences until mobile catches up.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/gear-vr/
My impression is something like this is a big part of the future of the Oculus platform, and that the Rift is designed to deliver higher quality experiences until mobile catches up.
The Big Kahuna is going to be standalone mobile VR headsets. Expect to see a self-contained headset from Oculus for the price of a mobile phone within 5 years.
Zuck knows he failed with Facebook Home. He has surveyed the landscape and he knows he'll never be more than the most-used app on someone else's phone. But he's still salivating to own a platform, so he's looking to the future.
Think about this: if you're sitting on the train, or waiting in the Doctor's office, would you rather wait in VR, or in a waiting room with your nose in a mobile phone?
And if you remove all of the bored killing-time-in-spaces-you'd-rather-not-be uses of mobile phones, how much use is really left in them?
Think too, how many phone calls will you make when you can run around a virtual dinosaur park, or sit under a virtual night sky with your friends and family?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but it does seem like VR could put quite a lot of pressure on what is now the dominant category of computing devices. And Zuck is better positioned than anyone to be the pack leader.
Also consider that phones are fundamentally disconnected from remote friends. You don't really want your sister scrolling through the news with you when you're on the train. But you might be totally happy to have her sitting next to you in a flowery meadow in VR while you both catch up on your news feed. Or maybe she is on the surface of Mars and you are in a flowery meadow but you both feel like you are together. Maybe she's fighting aliens in a forest while you are collecting mushrooms, bantering back and forth about what happened at work.
VR is fundamentally more amenable to social than flat screens are. Look no further than social console gaming to see the start of this. I think the merger of Facebook and Oculus is fascinating.
Zuck knows he failed with Facebook Home. He has surveyed the landscape and he knows he'll never be more than the most-used app on someone else's phone. But he's still salivating to own a platform, so he's looking to the future.
Think about this: if you're sitting on the train, or waiting in the Doctor's office, would you rather wait in VR, or in a waiting room with your nose in a mobile phone?
And if you remove all of the bored killing-time-in-spaces-you'd-rather-not-be uses of mobile phones, how much use is really left in them?
Think too, how many phone calls will you make when you can run around a virtual dinosaur park, or sit under a virtual night sky with your friends and family?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but it does seem like VR could put quite a lot of pressure on what is now the dominant category of computing devices. And Zuck is better positioned than anyone to be the pack leader.
Also consider that phones are fundamentally disconnected from remote friends. You don't really want your sister scrolling through the news with you when you're on the train. But you might be totally happy to have her sitting next to you in a flowery meadow in VR while you both catch up on your news feed. Or maybe she is on the surface of Mars and you are in a flowery meadow but you both feel like you are together. Maybe she's fighting aliens in a forest while you are collecting mushrooms, bantering back and forth about what happened at work.
VR is fundamentally more amenable to social than flat screens are. Look no further than social console gaming to see the start of this. I think the merger of Facebook and Oculus is fascinating.
> You don't really want your sister scrolling through the news with you when you're on the train. But you might be totally happy to have her sitting next to you in a flowery meadow in VR while you both catch up on your news feed.
You mean when she's not on the train too? That's not going to happen anytime soon, because mobile networks are far too crappy. On public transport in a major city in germany I regularly get latencies of 60+ seconds (yes, seconds) and a bandwidth of a few kilobytes/s max. There are also spots where you don't get any connection at all or you get a connection but it's so congested that you can't even make a DNS request that doesn't time out. Yes, I'm still talking about the middle of a big city. That's on the Eplus/O2 network.
You mean when she's not on the train too? That's not going to happen anytime soon, because mobile networks are far too crappy. On public transport in a major city in germany I regularly get latencies of 60+ seconds (yes, seconds) and a bandwidth of a few kilobytes/s max. There are also spots where you don't get any connection at all or you get a connection but it's so congested that you can't even make a DNS request that doesn't time out. Yes, I'm still talking about the middle of a big city. That's on the Eplus/O2 network.
> if you're sitting on the train, or waiting in the Doctor's office, would you rather wait in VR
Other than the added privacy, I'm having trouble imagining the advantages of that. I'm reading my facebook feed, but now nobody else can see it, oh boy!
But see, I already don't care if people see. So that doesn't help me. Being immersed might actually hurt me though. Honestly, the idea of being on a train and having no idea what's going on around me is kind of terrifying.
Other than the added privacy, I'm having trouble imagining the advantages of that. I'm reading my facebook feed, but now nobody else can see it, oh boy!
But see, I already don't care if people see. So that doesn't help me. Being immersed might actually hurt me though. Honestly, the idea of being on a train and having no idea what's going on around me is kind of terrifying.
The major benefit to me would be being able to look up from my coding to see, say, a beautiful professionally captured sunset over Half Dome instead of glancing over at a horrible painting someone bought from Bed Bath & Beyond.
I'm super excited and will be preordering. I think a lot of the "meh" response is the pre-announcement of the announcement aspect of this. With almost no details.
Seriously! The complete lack of vision from people who self-claim to be "visionary startup leaders" is mind numbing! And if you can get them to think even a little on the problem, all they can come up with is pedestrian garbage like movie viewing apps.
I'm not enthused simply because there is no pricing info, and no ship date. Until those exist, this is just marketing.
Waiting to see exactly how high above their original ~$350 target price the thing will go for before I decide whether this is interesting/exciting news or not.
Pricepoint determines market adoption. It could be the "best thing ever" at $1k and no normal consumer would buy one, leading to a drying up of interest and market adoption, resulting in a dead product. Given who's supporting it, granted, that's not a very likely outcome, but it's still something to keep in mind.
Pricepoint determines market adoption. It could be the "best thing ever" at $1k and no normal consumer would buy one, leading to a drying up of interest and market adoption, resulting in a dead product. Given who's supporting it, granted, that's not a very likely outcome, but it's still something to keep in mind.
I think the disappointment is the long and rocky road it has taken to get to this point, allowing multiple competitors (Valve, Sony, Microsoft) to be in position to leap-frog them.
I'm excited to see the future of VR, but I'm ultimately looking at a $1200-$1500 investment at least for a new computer and an Oculus. I simply don't have the money for that right now especially in the early consumer stages of a product.
I will say that I have tried DK1 and I was extremely impressed with it. That being said, I'll probably jump on this bandwagon in the next 3-4 years.
I will say that I have tried DK1 and I was extremely impressed with it. That being said, I'll probably jump on this bandwagon in the next 3-4 years.
How do I try one without buying it? [serious]
If you mean the consumer rift you're limited to the big electronics shows for now, I'm sure that they have plans for broader consumer displays that we'll see in the near future.
But if you mean Oculus in general the Gear VR is an ok start (and widely available) but I'd recommend
(a) Get yourself to one of the many VR meetups that are fairly geographically distributed @ this point http://vr.meetup.com/
(b) Visit www.reddit.com/r/oculus and make a request for a demo in your area if you're in a less populated area.
But if you mean Oculus in general the Gear VR is an ok start (and widely available) but I'd recommend
(a) Get yourself to one of the many VR meetups that are fairly geographically distributed @ this point http://vr.meetup.com/
(b) Visit www.reddit.com/r/oculus and make a request for a demo in your area if you're in a less populated area.
Map of people with oculus setups willing to give out demos.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zOfhcB3uWEbI.k7yXLl...
I have no enthusiasm left for Oculus.
> But if you're browsing HN because you're a hacker / developer / dreamer you are crazy to discount how substantial this release is (especially if you haven't TRIED it yet!).
I bought a Rift DK2, because they said that they support linux. Their linux support was never complete and always pretty bad, especially mesa support was always buggy. So I haven't seen much in the DK2 until I sold it after oculus dropped linux support.
Enthusiasm for VR is still there, but for oculus? They didn't deliver what they promised for their DK2. The only good thing is that - unlike with the DK2 - linux users know for sure not to buy it now.
Maybe Valve will get it right with Steam OS.
> But if you're browsing HN because you're a hacker / developer / dreamer you are crazy to discount how substantial this release is (especially if you haven't TRIED it yet!).
I bought a Rift DK2, because they said that they support linux. Their linux support was never complete and always pretty bad, especially mesa support was always buggy. So I haven't seen much in the DK2 until I sold it after oculus dropped linux support.
Enthusiasm for VR is still there, but for oculus? They didn't deliver what they promised for their DK2. The only good thing is that - unlike with the DK2 - linux users know for sure not to buy it now.
Maybe Valve will get it right with Steam OS.
Two words: Oculus Only
The last word I heard from the Oculus team is that the game releases would be restricted for use with the Oculus only. No morpheus, no holo-lens, no (insert startup here).
This has killed my desire to support Oculus.
The last word I heard from the Oculus team is that the game releases would be restricted for use with the Oculus only. No morpheus, no holo-lens, no (insert startup here).
This has killed my desire to support Oculus.
Played with prototype -- found it was still not as high fidelity to be usable for what we were doing. I am afraid it was hyped enough that we had higher expectations. The roller-coaster demo was cool but it was still like looking through a screen-door (through mosquito net), the square pixels were too distracting.
Which prototype? It sounds like you used a DK1, where the SDE (screen door effect) was very pronounced. The DK1's resolution is 1280×800@60hz.
The DK2 is 1920x1080@75hz, and the CV1 (subject of OP) is 2160×1200@90hz. I'm sure the SDE is still perceptible in the CV1 if you look closely enough, but most reports say it is no longer an issue.
The DK2 is 1920x1080@75hz, and the CV1 (subject of OP) is 2160×1200@90hz. I'm sure the SDE is still perceptible in the CV1 if you look closely enough, but most reports say it is no longer an issue.
Yap it was DK1. Well, that's good to know. I didn't follow u after that much. We moved on from that project, and now I am at a different company altogether. But they'll probably revisit it next year or so. It was just an experimental "let's see what we can do with this" thing and we decided to wait till next generation.
hacker / developer / dreamer you are crazy to discount
how substantial this release is (especially if you
haven't TRIED it yet!).
i know, i know.. i sound crazy
but, as far as your comment on 'release' one of my favourite things about hn is the communities' reliable response 'congrats on shipping'
i'd rather see more of that than people breathing this effluvium of delphi
so, congrats on shipping
Here are my thoughts on the situation:
1) First generation devices are usually flops/riddled with bugs, but usually exploitable if you don't upgrade firmware/etc.
2) I would probably need to buy a 980TI ($600) or Titan X ($1k) to make up for my i7-2600k's failure. (I want a Titan X for deep convolution neural networks anyways).
3) Nvidia is on the verge of releasing their Pascal architecture. The Titan X was just recently released (Mar '15?). While it is a powerhouse, the pascal base Titan may come with 12-16GB of memory and a 10-20% speed increase.
4) Intel is near release on their broadwell-e platform which should be able to consume 40 pci-e lanes (like haswell-e). No word yet on if they plan on being able to use 40 pci-e lanes with skylake.
Summary: In 1 years time, there will be a base Pascal Titan that outperforms the Maxwell Titan X, a new ~$500 CPU that will be on par with the current $1000 CPU, and an assortment of VR options available. As much as it pains me, unless I see a Titan X for $600-800 on craigslist, I'm going to wait this one out.
1) First generation devices are usually flops/riddled with bugs, but usually exploitable if you don't upgrade firmware/etc.
2) I would probably need to buy a 980TI ($600) or Titan X ($1k) to make up for my i7-2600k's failure. (I want a Titan X for deep convolution neural networks anyways).
3) Nvidia is on the verge of releasing their Pascal architecture. The Titan X was just recently released (Mar '15?). While it is a powerhouse, the pascal base Titan may come with 12-16GB of memory and a 10-20% speed increase.
4) Intel is near release on their broadwell-e platform which should be able to consume 40 pci-e lanes (like haswell-e). No word yet on if they plan on being able to use 40 pci-e lanes with skylake.
Summary: In 1 years time, there will be a base Pascal Titan that outperforms the Maxwell Titan X, a new ~$500 CPU that will be on par with the current $1000 CPU, and an assortment of VR options available. As much as it pains me, unless I see a Titan X for $600-800 on craigslist, I'm going to wait this one out.
[deleted]
Wasn't Pascal supposed to be much more than 10-20% of an improvement for deep learning?
The DK2 works fine on middle-line GPUs. I'm certain this one will too.
Edit: I meant "worked"
Edit: I meant "worked"
Recommended GPU is an NVidia 970.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/
Don't know what's wrong with my previous comment, but one can assume NV970 will be more or less main stream at the time the rift goes main stream. And since it's the recommended config (not _minimal_), most game will still be _enjoyable_ with maybe a 960.
No need for a Titan.
/* And since this is not reddit, please share your opinion if you downvote, it brings up debate and that's what makes HN interesting. */
No need for a Titan.
/* And since this is not reddit, please share your opinion if you downvote, it brings up debate and that's what makes HN interesting. */
Yes, but that's also true for 4k gaming. It's not an issue at all for PC gamers to get a 970.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
That is pretty damning on the amount of users with a 970/780ti/980/980ti/titan x. My 560ti plays most games at a decent resolution in mid-settings at 144hz. It is hard to validate a $400 replacement for non-time consuming entertainment.
Note: a 970 is in the top 6 -- http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
That is pretty damning on the amount of users with a 970/780ti/980/980ti/titan x. My 560ti plays most games at a decent resolution in mid-settings at 144hz. It is hard to validate a $400 replacement for non-time consuming entertainment.
Note: a 970 is in the top 6 -- http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Yes, but a lot of those users with lower end GPU are playing games like League of Legends, World of Warcraft, Hearthstone, Starcraft 2, etc. They are not the players that are going to rush out and order first-gen VR.
> lower end GPU are playing games like League of Legends, World of Warcraft, Hearthstone, Starcraft
None of those games you listed are available on the Steam shop and aren't included in the stats linked. The Steam stats do have tons of other games and is pretty much the most accurate consensus on PC gamer's hardware.
And GTX 970 is pretty much in the top 5% of GPU hardware, the vast majority 90%+ of PC gamers aren't even close to that.
None of those games you listed are available on the Steam shop and aren't included in the stats linked. The Steam stats do have tons of other games and is pretty much the most accurate consensus on PC gamer's hardware.
And GTX 970 is pretty much in the top 5% of GPU hardware, the vast majority 90%+ of PC gamers aren't even close to that.
Really? My understanding was that VR required extremely high framerates to provide a satisfying experience to the user.
Officially recommended graphics hardware is a GTX970, which are a much more palatable $3-400.
I've never dropped more than $150US on a video card, and that was before the Canadian dollar tanked.
I'm thinking I'm going to be waiting a bit before getting into this business.
I'm thinking I'm going to be waiting a bit before getting into this business.
IMO, for Nvidia the *70's are the sweet spot at about $300. They perform well enough that they last for a while and aren't obsolete quickly (my main problem with buying at the lower-middle end), but don't have the absurd diminishing returns of something like the Titans.
The specs of the Oculus Rift are fairly steep and are basically a middle high end gaming PC, but they have said that the requirements won't change over the life of the device so it'll go down. It was about time for a GPU upgrade for me anyway, so I've been pondering over going for a new GPU + Rift.
The specs of the Oculus Rift are fairly steep and are basically a middle high end gaming PC, but they have said that the requirements won't change over the life of the device so it'll go down. It was about time for a GPU upgrade for me anyway, so I've been pondering over going for a new GPU + Rift.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Probably the better link is to the announcement of the pre-orders itself: https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/oculus-rift-pre-orders-to-...
I'm confused though; why do a pre-announcement for an announcement about pre-purchasing a product that's only two days away? They should have simply opened up pre-orders immediately.
That being said I can't imagine they expect to sell much. It requires such a beefy PC (of which fewer and fewer are buying them nowadays for ultrabooks and tablets) and it's going to be expensive plus it won't ship with the touch controllers.
I think VR will ultimately become HUGE but until I can get one for at most $200 and use without a beefy PC I'll pass.
I'm confused though; why do a pre-announcement for an announcement about pre-purchasing a product that's only two days away? They should have simply opened up pre-orders immediately.
That being said I can't imagine they expect to sell much. It requires such a beefy PC (of which fewer and fewer are buying them nowadays for ultrabooks and tablets) and it's going to be expensive plus it won't ship with the touch controllers.
I think VR will ultimately become HUGE but until I can get one for at most $200 and use without a beefy PC I'll pass.
> Until I can get one for at most $200 and use without a beefy PC I'll pass.
That's fair, but not really relevant.
There are more than enough people willing to pay to meet the early adopter 'exclusivity' target they are going for. And If they deliver it right (and the included games are half decent) word of mouth, and trying it at a friends house can create a snowball effect.
The question is if VR is ready for the mainstream and vice versa. That will be down to the ingenuity of developers and the capability of the hardware. I don't think cost or the current limitation to PC is at all relevant in that aspect. Of course these will spill over to consoles in time if it is successful, and of course they will become cheaper if mass demand follows.
That's fair, but not really relevant.
There are more than enough people willing to pay to meet the early adopter 'exclusivity' target they are going for. And If they deliver it right (and the included games are half decent) word of mouth, and trying it at a friends house can create a snowball effect.
The question is if VR is ready for the mainstream and vice versa. That will be down to the ingenuity of developers and the capability of the hardware. I don't think cost or the current limitation to PC is at all relevant in that aspect. Of course these will spill over to consoles in time if it is successful, and of course they will become cheaper if mass demand follows.
People have been waiting for this for years, if they had just opened the pre-orders without a pre-announcment there would have been (virtual) riots.
Thanks, we changed the URL from https://www.oculus.com/en-us/.
> but until I can get one for at most $200 and use without a beefy PC I'll pass.
200 dollars I could see, but you will need a powerful machine to drive the resolution and frame rate required (or get sick, up to you).
and the reason is likely because they expect backorders and announcing preorders means it's fair for everyone.
200 dollars I could see, but you will need a powerful machine to drive the resolution and frame rate required (or get sick, up to you).
and the reason is likely because they expect backorders and announcing preorders means it's fair for everyone.
Gamers tend to own and upgrade beefy PCs.
Hmm I'm having trouble finding any type of reliable statistics. When I used to do lots of PC gaming I was in many gaming groups of which maybe 10% of them would upgrade their computers to be above mid to high end. At most (all of us always complained about how terrible our PCs were and how lower our FPS were almost as if it were a badge of honor). But this is anecdotal so I have no ground to really speak on. Having said that it's hard for me to swallow that PC gamers "tend" to "own and upgrade beefy PCs".
Any sources?
Edit: interesting that when asking for source regarding the parent's claim I get multiple downvotes. I don't really understand why.
Any sources?
Edit: interesting that when asking for source regarding the parent's claim I get multiple downvotes. I don't really understand why.
Here is a good source - unfortunately down at the moment for me:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Thanks I'll check it out when it comes back online later. It's been a while since I looked at the steam survey; I wonder how indicative it is compared with the PC gaming industry as a whole. I mean they practically have a monopoly so I would imagine it's at least good statistically but I don't know how many go through the survey (I'm assuming it's still opt-in like it was when I last used it which could skew the numbers).
It pops up every few months to a year for me when I first open Steam, so not necessarily opt-in (but very easy to opt-out). About the only thing you have to fill out as well is your connection speed, so it's pretty painless.
An announcement of an announcement gets twice the press coverage.
Now the real question- go with Facebook and buy an Oculus Rift or go with Valve/HTC and buy a Vive?
The Vive has more features (like head tracking) but maybe it will be more expensive? There's been nothing but silence in terms of pricing of either of them... I do have a hard time justifying $500+ for a screen I'll strap to my head that will probably be obsolete in a year or two.
I will say though, I recently bought a Steam Link and a Steam Controller and I am pretty impressed with the quality of Valve's hardware.
The Vive has more features (like head tracking) but maybe it will be more expensive? There's been nothing but silence in terms of pricing of either of them... I do have a hard time justifying $500+ for a screen I'll strap to my head that will probably be obsolete in a year or two.
I will say though, I recently bought a Steam Link and a Steam Controller and I am pretty impressed with the quality of Valve's hardware.
Both the Vive and the Rift have head tracking. Positional head tracking has been around since 2014.
The Vive has "room-scale" tracking that lets you walk around a large room-sized space, and includes hand controllers that are also tracked in the world.
The Rift should support "room-scale" with more cameras, but is not a main focus/supported use case yet for Oculus. The Oculus Touch is like the Vive's tracked hand controllers.
They are far more similar to each other than most people realize.
It is unlikely to be obsolete in 1 year. The update/release cycle for VR headsets (at least for Oculus) is expected to be somewhere between consoles (6-8 years) and smartphones (1 year).
Pricing will be announced on Jan 6 morning and should help you decide.
Note: I work full-time developing VR software and own every VR headset.
The Vive has "room-scale" tracking that lets you walk around a large room-sized space, and includes hand controllers that are also tracked in the world.
The Rift should support "room-scale" with more cameras, but is not a main focus/supported use case yet for Oculus. The Oculus Touch is like the Vive's tracked hand controllers.
They are far more similar to each other than most people realize.
It is unlikely to be obsolete in 1 year. The update/release cycle for VR headsets (at least for Oculus) is expected to be somewhere between consoles (6-8 years) and smartphones (1 year).
Pricing will be announced on Jan 6 morning and should help you decide.
Note: I work full-time developing VR software and own every VR headset.
Thank you for clarifying the tracking differences, didn't realize the Rift had added so much. I'm interested in room-scale tracking, but my apartment is pretty tiny so I'm not sure I would actually get to use it (so maybe the Vive would be overkill)
Interesting to think about obsolescence of the headsets- I wonder if it will be tied to graphics cards getting more powerful and allowing for higher resolutions or more "breakthroughs" in the headset hardware itself, i.e. lenses and screens and eye tracking.
Interesting to think about obsolescence of the headsets- I wonder if it will be tied to graphics cards getting more powerful and allowing for higher resolutions or more "breakthroughs" in the headset hardware itself, i.e. lenses and screens and eye tracking.
The maximum Vive space is 15x15 feet, and I don't own one but I've heard that it handles different scales pretty gracefully.
I've tried the Vive in a smaller space and the way it handles walls is pretty intuitive (it puts a "ghost" grid where the wall is when you get close to it). I guess I'm more concerned about how developers handle small spaces- surely not every application/game out there will accommodate for a 10x10 or even a 5x5 space
Is the Vive wireless? Room-scale tracking + wires seems suboptimal.
No desktop VR headset is wireless today, and won't be for the foreseeable future due to latency and bandwidth requirements.
Wires are suboptimal but tracked wires (just like the headset is tracked. i.e. you'll see the wire in VR) should alleviate this problem until wireless technologies mature.
Mobile VR will provide room-scale tracking without wires in 2016. Watch this space.
Wires are suboptimal but tracked wires (just like the headset is tracked. i.e. you'll see the wire in VR) should alleviate this problem until wireless technologies mature.
Mobile VR will provide room-scale tracking without wires in 2016. Watch this space.
Good discussion of why you can't stream VR experiences [0]. Also, streaming VR kills privacy.
Positional tracking with a smartphone's built in camera is already possible[1] thanks to SLAM[2]. Let me say that again, Google Cardboard and GearVR can (technologically) do positional tracking, right now.
The reason they don't is probably because you have to spend time scanning your room. But that's a really poor reason, I agree with OP, we should expect to see this happen very soon.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3axtxl/streaming_to...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7bjsIqlbS0
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_localization_and_...
Positional tracking with a smartphone's built in camera is already possible[1] thanks to SLAM[2]. Let me say that again, Google Cardboard and GearVR can (technologically) do positional tracking, right now.
The reason they don't is probably because you have to spend time scanning your room. But that's a really poor reason, I agree with OP, we should expect to see this happen very soon.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3axtxl/streaming_to...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7bjsIqlbS0
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_localization_and_...
Wireless solutions would introduce too much latency, so you're always tethered to a box. It takes some getting used to, and I definitely wouldn't recommend a lot of running and jumping, but it's not a major complicating factor in my experience (though that's in an office environment that was set aside for VR testing, so a home installation may differ significantly). Personally, even though the movement area is limited and the wires are relatively cumbersome, I've found the Vive experience much more immersive.
[deleted]
I would wait until after CES 2016 to make a decision, HTC is meant to have a big announcement:
http://www.techradar.com/news/wearables/major-htc-vive-break...
http://www.techradar.com/news/wearables/major-htc-vive-break...
Linux support is a must-have for me at least.
I tried both and the HTC Vive was just years ahead. I haven't tried the new oculus touch but the simple fact that they won't ship it included tells me it's nowhere near HTC Vive.
That's because you compared a vive (current) to a DK2 (old). You couldn't possibly come to that conclusion if you tested a modern Oculus headset.
You tried the Crescent Bay version of the Rift? I found the difference to not be that noticeable. Crescent was room scale mostly with no issues, a slight higher chance of losing site, but not much due to sensors on all sides of the headset. The hand tracking option of Vive is rad though.
Honestly both are rad. Everyone here is a professional programmer, if you care about VR and all it's potential I don't see why people wouldn't buy multiple if new ones are better than previous version. Ha, well except I know my wife is definitely giving me a budget, cause I want to buy every peripheral.
Honestly both are rad. Everyone here is a professional programmer, if you care about VR and all it's potential I don't see why people wouldn't buy multiple if new ones are better than previous version. Ha, well except I know my wife is definitely giving me a budget, cause I want to buy every peripheral.
Don't really know, but it was pretty recent: the RSA booth at blackhat US 2015
I've tried both (and own a Vive) and the Touch definitely has better ergonomics and is more analogous to having your hand in the world whereas the Vive 'wands' feel like you are holding a stick. It's not a clear cut decision. Personally I prefer Touch.
The Vive controllers are literally a steam controller cut in half, i.e. prototype material. I think they already said that the released controllers would be updated.
I agree, the new oculus touch controllers have very nice ergonomics in comparison. But otherwise won't be coming with. I didn't notice a huge difference in visual fidelity. And the Lighthouse tracking system is just so much better. Not only can it do room scale trivially, but it has a very wide field of view so works better in tight spaces. And is much, much better about loosing tracking.
I'm waiting for the Vive, or at least a bunch of a reviews of both platforms. I trust Valve a lot more than Facebook to deliver a gaming device that won't be caught up in strange legal requirements, social media promotion, lock-in, platform exclusives, and potential privacy exploitation.
I also feel that the Valve team has been working on the non-sexy issues like controls, motion sickness, advanced eye tracking (rumor?), and head tracking as opposed to the narrative that comes out of the Rift which seems to be centered on "OMG RESOLUTION AND FPS!" Obviously, gamers will lean towards the latter but I suspect work on the former will be more important.
I'm also concerned that this stuff will look great, but will require a $2,500 gaming machine to make it all work right. I just upgraded to a Nvidia 950 and from what I've read that's really too weak to do 1080p per eye at 60fps on anything coming close to AAA graphics. I really don't want to be forced to deal with PS3-like polygons and textures for the 3D effect to work correctly.
I guess I'll wait and see. I'm certainly not doing any preorders. I'll let the early adopter crowd figure this stuff out. I'm also waiting for magic leap to produce an AR product, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon. I am somewhat concerned that AR could strangle VR in the cradle.
I also feel that the Valve team has been working on the non-sexy issues like controls, motion sickness, advanced eye tracking (rumor?), and head tracking as opposed to the narrative that comes out of the Rift which seems to be centered on "OMG RESOLUTION AND FPS!" Obviously, gamers will lean towards the latter but I suspect work on the former will be more important.
I'm also concerned that this stuff will look great, but will require a $2,500 gaming machine to make it all work right. I just upgraded to a Nvidia 950 and from what I've read that's really too weak to do 1080p per eye at 60fps on anything coming close to AAA graphics. I really don't want to be forced to deal with PS3-like polygons and textures for the 3D effect to work correctly.
I guess I'll wait and see. I'm certainly not doing any preorders. I'll let the early adopter crowd figure this stuff out. I'm also waiting for magic leap to produce an AR product, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon. I am somewhat concerned that AR could strangle VR in the cradle.
FYI, it doesn't require a $2,500 gaming machine. The recommended specifications require a PC that costs roughly $1,000. "Oculus Ready" certified PCs start at $950.
Not sure where you'd get the idea that Oculus isn't working on non-sexy problems, considering how many people Oculus has working on controls (Oculus Touch), motion sickness, and yes eye tracking too. Obviously Oculus is working on "head tracking" - that's been around since 2012.
Either way, you are correct: waiting to hear about the Vive is a good idea. VR in general (Vive, Rift, etc.) is very much an early adopter technology for the next couple years.
Minor note: AR is far from maturity. The FoV and resolution pales in comparison to VR. 30-degrees (like looking through a pinhole) versus 110-degrees is a massive difference that's hard to explain. AR and VR are like sister technologies that will one day converge.
AR approaching VR by improving FoV and resolution over the next decade, and VR approaching AR by improving real-world capture & scene reconstruction.
Not sure where you'd get the idea that Oculus isn't working on non-sexy problems, considering how many people Oculus has working on controls (Oculus Touch), motion sickness, and yes eye tracking too. Obviously Oculus is working on "head tracking" - that's been around since 2012.
Either way, you are correct: waiting to hear about the Vive is a good idea. VR in general (Vive, Rift, etc.) is very much an early adopter technology for the next couple years.
Minor note: AR is far from maturity. The FoV and resolution pales in comparison to VR. 30-degrees (like looking through a pinhole) versus 110-degrees is a massive difference that's hard to explain. AR and VR are like sister technologies that will one day converge.
AR approaching VR by improving FoV and resolution over the next decade, and VR approaching AR by improving real-world capture & scene reconstruction.
>The recommended specifications require a PC that costs roughly $1,000.
The recommended card for this is a 970 which chimes in at around $350 today. Another $450 (more?) for the Rift, well, you're pushing $1,000 with tax and shipping right there without a PC, CPU, OS, etc. This stuff is fairly pricey and downplaying the cost is being a little disingenuous. I think if you want to remotely future-proof your rig, yes, you are much closer to the $2,500 mark than $1,000. My point stands; this stuff is really, really expensive. Especially when the real competitors in the PC VR gaming space are going to be consoles. I suspect Sony's offering with come in at a cheaper cost and work with the existing PS4. That's going to be a value proposition that's going to be tough to beat.
>motion sickness
This is unsolved in the VR space. Oculus struggles with it and HTC/Valve claim their "lighthouse" technology can greatly limit it, but there's been no public demonstration or study here proving any of these claims. Hand wavey readings of PR bullet points from vendors isn't convincing.
The recommended card for this is a 970 which chimes in at around $350 today. Another $450 (more?) for the Rift, well, you're pushing $1,000 with tax and shipping right there without a PC, CPU, OS, etc. This stuff is fairly pricey and downplaying the cost is being a little disingenuous. I think if you want to remotely future-proof your rig, yes, you are much closer to the $2,500 mark than $1,000. My point stands; this stuff is really, really expensive. Especially when the real competitors in the PC VR gaming space are going to be consoles. I suspect Sony's offering with come in at a cheaper cost and work with the existing PS4. That's going to be a value proposition that's going to be tough to beat.
>motion sickness
This is unsolved in the VR space. Oculus struggles with it and HTC/Valve claim their "lighthouse" technology can greatly limit it, but there's been no public demonstration or study here proving any of these claims. Hand wavey readings of PR bullet points from vendors isn't convincing.
Fwiw, I read an article the other day that stated that dual-GPU cards are likely going to be ideal for this.
I'm not a graphics hacker, but the gist was that a lot of modern rendering techniques had broken the ability to split workload via alternate frame rendering.
However, since each VR eye can essentially be independently run as its own pipeline, they'd see a much more ideal speedup in "same scene, two eyes" workloads.
I'm not a graphics hacker, but the gist was that a lot of modern rendering techniques had broken the ability to split workload via alternate frame rendering.
However, since each VR eye can essentially be independently run as its own pipeline, they'd see a much more ideal speedup in "same scene, two eyes" workloads.
Some of those arguments would have held more water before the complete security clusterfuck that Valve visited upon the users of Steam over the holidays.
from how i understood it, valve was not the one at fault for the caching bug, it was whoever they use for hosting :^)
As opposed to a screen that you keep in your pocket that will be obsolete in a year or two?
When you boil down a product to simple terms its really easy to make it sound pointless.
When you boil down a product to simple terms its really easy to make it sound pointless.
That's a pretty good point; same price as a smartphone, and I upgrade that pretty frequently (although, less and less frequently as time goes on and no compelling new features are being added)
The Rift most certainly has head tracking - perhaps you're getting confused with Gear VR, which lacks positional tracking.
The only way to answer this question properly is to wait and see. No reasonable comparisons can be made until the final hardware and their respective prices are available and have been reviewed thoroughly. For now all we can do is speculate, which is fun but likely won't be terribly useful.
It's kind of funny to think about --
Oculus, first to "invent", (almost) last to market.
Given all the hype and big names that joined the Oculus team, and even the sudden sell-out to Facebook (leaving most of their Kickstarter backers feeling used), Oculus has yet to produce a consumer product.
At this pace, they're on track to be 3rd to market (well, "tied" if we count pre-orders being taken at CES), even though they were "leading the way" just a short time ago.
In addition, from a consumer perspective, their "finished" product looks almost identical to the "developer" previews they shipped years back...
Oculus, first to "invent", (almost) last to market.
Given all the hype and big names that joined the Oculus team, and even the sudden sell-out to Facebook (leaving most of their Kickstarter backers feeling used), Oculus has yet to produce a consumer product.
At this pace, they're on track to be 3rd to market (well, "tied" if we count pre-orders being taken at CES), even though they were "leading the way" just a short time ago.
In addition, from a consumer perspective, their "finished" product looks almost identical to the "developer" previews they shipped years back...
"3rd to market"?
The first consumer VR hardware on the market was the GearVR, made by Samsung AND Oculus.
The second consumer VR hardware on the market is likely to be the Oculus Rift (Q1 Jan-Mar shipping) and the Vive is likely to be the third to market (est. April shipping)
This is nothing like the developer previews from years ago. You should read up on the major differences from the DK1->DK2->CV1. Each was a massive leap forward in capability.
Note: I've been developing VR for 1+ years and own every VR headset.
The first consumer VR hardware on the market was the GearVR, made by Samsung AND Oculus.
The second consumer VR hardware on the market is likely to be the Oculus Rift (Q1 Jan-Mar shipping) and the Vive is likely to be the third to market (est. April shipping)
This is nothing like the developer previews from years ago. You should read up on the major differences from the DK1->DK2->CV1. Each was a massive leap forward in capability.
Note: I've been developing VR for 1+ years and own every VR headset.
> "own every VR headset"
Even a Virtuality? ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuality_%28gaming%29
Even a Virtuality? ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuality_%28gaming%29
As much as VR purists love to hate it, Google Cardboard was the first to market.
Durovis Dive was out before Google Cardboard (consumer version of Dive released in November 2013, Google Cardboard was announced in June 2014). Furthermore, there were VR headsets before the Oculus Kickstarter, VR is not a new field, it's just never truly been mainstream before (though it looks likely that it'll breakthrough to the mainstream in 2016).
Not sure if trolling but... The first Oculus dev kit shipped 50k in 2013. Cardboard wasn't announced until I/O 2014.
> The first Oculus dev kit shipped
We're talking about consumer items, not dev kits. In reality, Google Cardboard was the first (modern) VR kit released.
We're talking about consumer items, not dev kits. In reality, Google Cardboard was the first (modern) VR kit released.
Is Cardboard a consumer item? It's been pretty straight to dev expect marketing promotions and Google IO handouts.
I think it's not a real "serious" product; more of a "gag", if anything.
I think it was Google's way at having fun with all the VR hype around last year's I/O conference (and to show it's not anything really groundbreaking).
I think it was Google's way at having fun with all the VR hype around last year's I/O conference (and to show it's not anything really groundbreaking).
A bunch of Chinese companies started pumping out Cardboard clones pretty much as soon as it was announced and at least one commercial VR porn company is using them.
Cardboard is neat, but it's not the same thing.
The Sega Saturn also beat the PlayStation to market. Also Oculus had big improvements from one Dev kit to the next and said their last Dev model would be similar to their final model.
Or go with Sony and buy a PSVR (Project Morpheus).
Oculus VR games are likely restricted to the Oculus platform, so figure that in as well.
I just get the feeling VR technology simply will not work because the resolution isn't high enough, and even the most top-end monster PCs cannot handle standard resolution VR, let alone 4K or even 8K in the future.
Graphics cards really need a huge performance jump to make VR work, and given both Nvidia and AMD seem to be happy releasing a new set each year with only modest 20-30% performance gains then what does this mean for VR?
Graphics cards really need a huge performance jump to make VR work, and given both Nvidia and AMD seem to be happy releasing a new set each year with only modest 20-30% performance gains then what does this mean for VR?
Eh. VR "worked" quite well enough for presence on the now-ancient Rift devkit 2. And my machine is hardly top of the line. A many gens old Intel proc with modest RAM and a GTX970.
Worst case? It means that details are scaled back in the name of framerate. Presence still works in a world that doesn't seem perfectly lifelike, so as long as the player is in another world, that's the single most important thing.
Less AA, less texture resolution. We can dial that back up as the tech gets better.
VR is the new Crysis when it comes to stress testing your hardware :)
Worst case? It means that details are scaled back in the name of framerate. Presence still works in a world that doesn't seem perfectly lifelike, so as long as the player is in another world, that's the single most important thing.
Less AA, less texture resolution. We can dial that back up as the tech gets better.
VR is the new Crysis when it comes to stress testing your hardware :)
> Worst case? It means that details are scaled back in the name of framerate.
No, the worst case is that using them makes people sick.
No, the worst case is that using them makes people sick.
Which comes down to framerate, not detail. Put somebody in a grayscale world with simple geometric primitives (something even a mobile processor could render back in the 90s) with sub-60 framerates and people will get sick.
Most gamers that I see nowadays are all about the detail. Crank the AA up to max, the texture resolution to max, draw distance, and so on. If you lose a frame or two, it's not a big deal as long as the average is 60+.
VR completely reverses that - losing frames destroys immersion and causes motion sickness. Since even a fax-machine detail world still produces presence, we can easily sacrifice some detail for better framerates.
Most gamers that I see nowadays are all about the detail. Crank the AA up to max, the texture resolution to max, draw distance, and so on. If you lose a frame or two, it's not a big deal as long as the average is 60+.
VR completely reverses that - losing frames destroys immersion and causes motion sickness. Since even a fax-machine detail world still produces presence, we can easily sacrifice some detail for better framerates.
Even with DK1, a single 1 minute demo was enough to hook me. It works.
3D graphics didn't really "work" originally either. 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 used to seem like insane resolutions. Gotta start somewhere.
Heck, you can get a $1500 iMac with 5120x2880. That still seems insane to me. Granted the Iris Pro would have a tough time rendering 60 fps 3D for that, but even for 2D graphics it's crazy.
There seems to be some speculation[1] that the performance increase from Maxwell to Pascal will be larger than usual.
Given that 2016 is supposed to be the "year of VR", it makes (marketing) sense that the GPUs released this year will be designed and/or optimized for that purpose. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
[1] - http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidias-pascal-is-10x-as-powerful-as-...
Given that 2016 is supposed to be the "year of VR", it makes (marketing) sense that the GPUs released this year will be designed and/or optimized for that purpose. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
[1] - http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidias-pascal-is-10x-as-powerful-as-...
[deleted]
Foveated rendering would make 4K and 8K easier to reach.
Also, with VR, you can just upscale. You don't need to render a 4K/8K image to eliminate the screen-door effect.
Also, with VR, you can just upscale. You don't need to render a 4K/8K image to eliminate the screen-door effect.
Have you tried either the Vive or CV1 Oculus? Both are quite immersive, sure pixels are larger like some 2000 era graphics. But back then I was immersed just like now. Devs tend to be overly picky about things they didn't used to be just because say on mobile or monitors you have higher. The immersion trade off of full wrap around head tracking compared to high res in a rectangle is worth it.
[deleted]
I tried it and it works. Any people who tried it will tell you the same...
You really better have a high end PC if you're gonna spend $500 on a gadget for it, though.
Not that you can necessarily pinpoint a specific date for release when dealing with hardware but I have to believe, with no hard evidence, that releasing new products right after Christmas and just before tax time has to be one of the worst times to release...unless you intentionally want demand to be initially low.
I imagine the pent up demand for a consumer launch may exceed their initial manufacturing capacity.
Did they ever decide to care about Linux again? I returned my devkit because they said they didn't care about Linux a couple of weeks after I got mine. I won't send them more money unless they're going to support Linux.
> Linux support is on the roadmap post-launch, Mac support is on the roadmap post-decent Apple hardware release, whenever that is.
https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/674311865023918080
https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/674311865023918080
You could... return it? I thought they were very clear it wasn't refundable and there were some discussions in the forums about it with some negative quotes from the customer support...
> I won't send them more money unless they're going to support Linux.
Careful, they already said they support linux with the dk2 and we know how that went. Don't rely on what they say they "are going to do". Only buy it when they demonstrate complete and fully working linux support, not earlier.
> I won't send them more money unless they're going to support Linux.
Careful, they already said they support linux with the dk2 and we know how that went. Don't rely on what they say they "are going to do". Only buy it when they demonstrate complete and fully working linux support, not earlier.
>You could... return it? I thought they were very clear it wasn't refundable and there were some discussions in the forums about it with some negative quotes from the customer support...
You're right, but I spoke with support and made my case and since it had been such a short time since I bought it, they went ahead and did the refund.
>Careful, they already said they support linux with the dk2 and we know how that went. Don't rely on what they say they "are going to do". Only buy it when they demonstrate complete and fully working linux support, not earlier.
Sorry about my wording. I'm not going to buy it until there is actual support that I can actually use at the moment I open the box.
You're right, but I spoke with support and made my case and since it had been such a short time since I bought it, they went ahead and did the refund.
>Careful, they already said they support linux with the dk2 and we know how that went. Don't rely on what they say they "are going to do". Only buy it when they demonstrate complete and fully working linux support, not earlier.
Sorry about my wording. I'm not going to buy it until there is actual support that I can actually use at the moment I open the box.
Did they say they didn't care, or did they say they needed to focus development? There is a big difference between the two. If they were making a game in Unity and didn't release a Linux version, that's one thing. If they're making a brand new specialized piece of hardware and have had numerous delays and just need to get a product out the door... well it's a little more understandable that they would focus on one platform first.
The worry is, as time goes on, it will become harder and harder to "bolt on" Linux (or OSX) support.
Being cross-platform is a design decision, and it effects how you go about developing your platform (what technologies you use, etc...). So the fear is, they'll go down the Microsoft path and find it difficult to bring in other platforms down the road.
Being cross-platform is a design decision, and it effects how you go about developing your platform (what technologies you use, etc...). So the fear is, they'll go down the Microsoft path and find it difficult to bring in other platforms down the road.
Well, with OS X, at least, there is no retail Mac that meets the minimum hardware requirements previously announced, except possibly the Mac Pro (though it looks like even that benches lower than the minimum for the Rift). Given that and that Mac graphics driver/OpenGL performance lags significantly behind Windows, there's not really any reason to waste resources on the platform. I don't know what the current state is, but last I was aware, Linux OpenGL performance was also significantly worse than on Windows, so it seems pretty reasonable to me to leave it out as well.
> but last I was aware, Linux OpenGL performance was also significantly worse than on Windows
This has been untrue for quite a while now [1][2]. In fact, it's starting to look like OpenGL on any platform (even Windows) is better than DirectX.
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=win10-nv-...
[2] http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-fas...
This has been untrue for quite a while now [1][2]. In fact, it's starting to look like OpenGL on any platform (even Windows) is better than DirectX.
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=win10-nv-...
[2] http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-fas...
The problem is that most AAA games that are benchmarked on Linux vs Windows are 3rd party ports for a tiny minority among the customers. They put as little resources as possible into the ports, that's just enough to deliver something that is well playable.
Once you can compare an engine/game that has been optimized for OpenGL with equal effort than for D3D, then you can make a fair comparison.
But it's true, OpenGL drivers are often worse. Not just on Linux. Look at what happened when RAGE came out. Presumably that's also only because drivers for D3D are optimized and hacked on much, much more because there are so many AAA games that use it.
That there are already cases where AAA games run at times better on Linux than on Windows, even through a wrapper, is a very, very good sign for the performance to come if only a little more effort is put into the drivers and ports: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYIa-6UooM
That said, Unity and Unreal are the engines that matter most for VR right now. Both have linux versions. Unity 5.3 was recently released and they have updated their OpenGL backend significantly. I've not seen benchmarks yet...
Once you can compare an engine/game that has been optimized for OpenGL with equal effort than for D3D, then you can make a fair comparison.
But it's true, OpenGL drivers are often worse. Not just on Linux. Look at what happened when RAGE came out. Presumably that's also only because drivers for D3D are optimized and hacked on much, much more because there are so many AAA games that use it.
That there are already cases where AAA games run at times better on Linux than on Windows, even through a wrapper, is a very, very good sign for the performance to come if only a little more effort is put into the drivers and ports: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYIa-6UooM
That said, Unity and Unreal are the engines that matter most for VR right now. Both have linux versions. Unity 5.3 was recently released and they have updated their OpenGL backend significantly. I've not seen benchmarks yet...
I'm guessing it's much more safe (business-wise) to deploy for a "standard" platform like Windows and test the waters so to speak, in terms of consumer reception, games developed, etc, and then jump on to other platforms.
Of course, the end result is that you keep strengthening the "standard" platform and thus there's never critical mass for "alternative" platforms (for different values of "standard" and "alternative" depending on product), and so the cycle repeats itself.
But in the end Oculus is there to make money and making new hardware is very hard, let alone a whole new type of hardware.
This, I agree, is unfortunate, but I can't imagine how hard it must be to develop something like this for Linux, with the myriad of 3d drivers, sound drivers, etc. If you end up developing for say, Ubuntu Desktop only, then probably a lot of people would still complain and say "hey, Ubuntu is not the only Linux out there you know!".
Maybe Steam will take advantage of this and develop for Linux as well, thus putting pressure (and opening the market a bit) on competitors to move into this "alternative" market.
Of course, the end result is that you keep strengthening the "standard" platform and thus there's never critical mass for "alternative" platforms (for different values of "standard" and "alternative" depending on product), and so the cycle repeats itself.
But in the end Oculus is there to make money and making new hardware is very hard, let alone a whole new type of hardware.
This, I agree, is unfortunate, but I can't imagine how hard it must be to develop something like this for Linux, with the myriad of 3d drivers, sound drivers, etc. If you end up developing for say, Ubuntu Desktop only, then probably a lot of people would still complain and say "hey, Ubuntu is not the only Linux out there you know!".
Maybe Steam will take advantage of this and develop for Linux as well, thus putting pressure (and opening the market a bit) on competitors to move into this "alternative" market.
No, not yet.
I'm surprised no one on here has mentioned Minecraft yet.
One game that I was never able to get into before Oculus Rift was Minecraft. My kids have been begging me to play with them, but I really struggled to remain interested in the game. I could see why they loved it, but I didn't get into myself.
It bugged me that I was missing this opportunity to connect with my kids, especially with something computer-y, so over the holiday I spent a little time getting the Minecrift mod working.
Wow!
I now totally get it, and it seems to me that Minecraft will be at least one huge driver for the adoption of VR hardware amongst folks who are able to use it. (Recommended 13+.)
The low-resolution polygons in Minecraft really accentuate the 3D effect. When you're going up hills or looking at trees, the depth effect is crazily pronounced and amazing.
The basic graphics in Minecraft also have the benefit of rendering quite nicely even on incredibly limited hardware. For example, I spent hours playing on my 12" Retina MacBook, which I believe is the weakest hardware Apple ships. (Maybe it benefits from a GPU that powers a Retina display? I don't know.)
Getting attacked by creepers and zombies in the first-person was an insane experience. My heart rate was actually going up as I attempted to escape and ultimately failed.
And I was there. I grew personally attached to the cave I mined for myself where I hid to protect myself throughout the night, and felt a little sad when I accidentally let water flood in and destroy it. I was in that cave. Very cool.
I would frequently look down at my hands to remind myself of what weapon or tool I was holding and go through my hot keys until I saw the tool I wanted to use.
I'd spend a good deal of time just watching that big pixelated sun set over a landscape, and if I found a safe place, I'd sit around and watch the stars move through the night sky as the earth rotated. (Mostly I think this is when I became the most aware of the "screen door" effect.)
Anyway, if you've got DK2 hardware, I highly recommend trying it out with Minecraft if you haven't already. Microsoft announced they're planning official Oculus Rift support for Minecraft in the first half of next year, and judging from the way my son talks to his friends about it ("he's actually in Minecraft,") I think Minecraft will be a huge driver of sales of Oculus Rift.
One game that I was never able to get into before Oculus Rift was Minecraft. My kids have been begging me to play with them, but I really struggled to remain interested in the game. I could see why they loved it, but I didn't get into myself.
It bugged me that I was missing this opportunity to connect with my kids, especially with something computer-y, so over the holiday I spent a little time getting the Minecrift mod working.
Wow!
I now totally get it, and it seems to me that Minecraft will be at least one huge driver for the adoption of VR hardware amongst folks who are able to use it. (Recommended 13+.)
The low-resolution polygons in Minecraft really accentuate the 3D effect. When you're going up hills or looking at trees, the depth effect is crazily pronounced and amazing.
The basic graphics in Minecraft also have the benefit of rendering quite nicely even on incredibly limited hardware. For example, I spent hours playing on my 12" Retina MacBook, which I believe is the weakest hardware Apple ships. (Maybe it benefits from a GPU that powers a Retina display? I don't know.)
Getting attacked by creepers and zombies in the first-person was an insane experience. My heart rate was actually going up as I attempted to escape and ultimately failed.
And I was there. I grew personally attached to the cave I mined for myself where I hid to protect myself throughout the night, and felt a little sad when I accidentally let water flood in and destroy it. I was in that cave. Very cool.
I would frequently look down at my hands to remind myself of what weapon or tool I was holding and go through my hot keys until I saw the tool I wanted to use.
I'd spend a good deal of time just watching that big pixelated sun set over a landscape, and if I found a safe place, I'd sit around and watch the stars move through the night sky as the earth rotated. (Mostly I think this is when I became the most aware of the "screen door" effect.)
Anyway, if you've got DK2 hardware, I highly recommend trying it out with Minecraft if you haven't already. Microsoft announced they're planning official Oculus Rift support for Minecraft in the first half of next year, and judging from the way my son talks to his friends about it ("he's actually in Minecraft,") I think Minecraft will be a huge driver of sales of Oculus Rift.
Why do they have to be so secretive of their pricing?! Why can't I see the price now so I can consider if it's worth it or not?
Presumably because they want to be able to justify the pricing by telling you all about the new stuff they put into the thing, and they want to time details of the product with a big unveiling and marketing push.
Just announcing the price without details of what you're getting for it is just going to make a bunch of forums and subreddits very angry in the way only gaming communities can get really angry.
Just announcing the price without details of what you're getting for it is just going to make a bunch of forums and subreddits very angry in the way only gaming communities can get really angry.
If they're shipping by Q1, then they know exactly what the details / specs are.
If they haven't released the price, it's more likely because FB wants to throw some serious money behind the marketing push. Which either means they were going to anyway, or the price is going to shock people.
If they haven't released the price, it's more likely because FB wants to throw some serious money behind the marketing push. Which either means they were going to anyway, or the price is going to shock people.
Sure, they definitely know what the details and specs are, but they also want to make a big deal out of said details/specs, and dropping it silently on a web page isn't anyone's idea of a big launch.
It's likely that there are substantial differences between the product and the DK2, or even what's been discussed in previous interviews/previews, so it makes sense to not talk too much about the product until they're in a position to present it properly (e.g., a big keynote followed by journalist demos).
And yeah, it's going to be expensive - the fact that they've said as much in previous interviews means they've already been trying to soften the ground for the revelation. It's almost certainly going to be more expensive than the DK1/DK2.
It's likely that there are substantial differences between the product and the DK2, or even what's been discussed in previous interviews/previews, so it makes sense to not talk too much about the product until they're in a position to present it properly (e.g., a big keynote followed by journalist demos).
And yeah, it's going to be expensive - the fact that they've said as much in previous interviews means they've already been trying to soften the ground for the revelation. It's almost certainly going to be more expensive than the DK1/DK2.
Standard marketing BS these days [0]. Announce the coming announcement for the pre-ordering of an unreleased product. A fake news event to generate the exact press they're getting.
I wouldn't be surprised if they announce the price before that timer goes away, just to get another round of press.
[0] Stuff like this is outlined in "Trust Me, I'm Lying" - http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator...
I wouldn't be surprised if they announce the price before that timer goes away, just to get another round of press.
[0] Stuff like this is outlined in "Trust Me, I'm Lying" - http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator...
Over $350 if this article/interview[0] is to be believed. $350 is the "ballpark" but more, so likely less than $500 but more than $350.
If I had to pull a figure out of the air: $425.
[0] http://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-explain...
If I had to pull a figure out of the air: $425.
[0] http://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-explain...
This announcement is just a courtesy heads-up to people who are waiting so they can arrange their schedules. The actual announcement is Wednesday. They didn't announce the price because then people would write news articles about it and they want to be able to do their marketing pitch at the same time and convert the buzz into preorders.
They've probably held back on the price so they can make it part of their presentation at CES this week.
Precisely because that'll give you time to consider it. They want the impulse buys.
I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on non-realistic graphics for VR to keep the specs down. If you try to make a VR game that looks as good as current high-end games, it's always going to require massive horsepower because it must run at 60+ FPS at a high resolution so everyone but hardcore gamers are going to be left out.
Mobile gaming became hugely popular without high-end graphics because of the easy of use, portability and touch input controls. I would have thought it would make more sense for VR games to focus on experiences you can only have with VR games (e.g. highly immersive, having sense of scale, use of hand input) and play to its strengths rather than limit its audience with high-end graphics.
I'm very excited about VR but having to buy a Rift and a high-end Windows gaming PC is asking a lot to get involved.
Mobile gaming became hugely popular without high-end graphics because of the easy of use, portability and touch input controls. I would have thought it would make more sense for VR games to focus on experiences you can only have with VR games (e.g. highly immersive, having sense of scale, use of hand input) and play to its strengths rather than limit its audience with high-end graphics.
I'm very excited about VR but having to buy a Rift and a high-end Windows gaming PC is asking a lot to get involved.
There is a lot of emphasis on non-realistic graphics. But the consensus is that it must run at 90FPS+ with two views so that bumps the specs back up again. Especially considering that most contemporary game engines aren't build with those sort of latencies in mind.
> There is a lot of emphasis on non-realistic graphics
Yes, I've seen this a lot on mobile especially and also with things like "Job Simulator". What I'm confused about is everyone (especially on /r/oculus) being very adamant about needing a GTX 970+ for VR.
My ~$200 GTX 760 can consistently run Team Fortress 2 at upwards of 200 frames per second, and TF2 looks fine to me.
I'm sure many people will appreciate having games for VR that take advantage of their fancy hardware, but why scare people away with such high requirements? Can't the industry tighten its belt a little for the first round and live with the fact that VR games won't look quite as good as their 2D counterparts? Surely even a $700 gaming PC would deliver a better experience than GearVR, which is already quite good.
Yes, I've seen this a lot on mobile especially and also with things like "Job Simulator". What I'm confused about is everyone (especially on /r/oculus) being very adamant about needing a GTX 970+ for VR.
My ~$200 GTX 760 can consistently run Team Fortress 2 at upwards of 200 frames per second, and TF2 looks fine to me.
I'm sure many people will appreciate having games for VR that take advantage of their fancy hardware, but why scare people away with such high requirements? Can't the industry tighten its belt a little for the first round and live with the fact that VR games won't look quite as good as their 2D counterparts? Surely even a $700 gaming PC would deliver a better experience than GearVR, which is already quite good.
Ah, between this and HTC Vive... After testing both the HTC Vive was just years better than the Oculus, but I haven't tried the new Oculus iteration with touch... So hard to choose.
Anyone want to discuss setups for both? I need to buy a new machine for that.
Anyone want to discuss setups for both? I need to buy a new machine for that.
Are you sure you tested the Oculus CV1? There's been many hardware iterations from Oculus and the latest one that people have been sampling has gotten very good reviews, some better than the Vive.
I'm not saying that I know for a fact that one is better than the other, but I'm surprised that you think one is 'years better'.
I'm not saying that I know for a fact that one is better than the other, but I'm surprised that you think one is 'years better'.
I have actually never read a review placing the Oculus above the HTC, I haven't read reviews in a while though. Around 6 months ago the consensus was that HTC Vive was way ahead IIRC.
The touch controllers are delayed, won't be ready for launch. It's a wet fart.
As a flight sim enthusiast, I am super pumped about this. Though a shame the hands-controller was delayed so I'll need to buy a third-party one (leap motion).
Flight sim in the rift is what I spend the majority of my free time doing.
Not sure what type of flight sim you are into, but using a proper yoke, throttle, and rudder pedals makes the experience much more immersive.
Not sure what type of flight sim you are into, but using a proper yoke, throttle, and rudder pedals makes the experience much more immersive.
I use FSX and X-Plane. I already have a yoke/throttle/rudder pedals. I agree, they vastly improve the experience more than anything else.
I currently use a TrackIR with two monitors, but truth be told it's a bit janky and I find it very difficult to visually tell angles (for example: what's the angle of my plane to the runway? I could use the heading indicator for that purpose but I don't want to develop bad habits for real-life flights).
The hands thing would let me flip switches in-cockpit, which is nice. No more mouse!
I currently use a TrackIR with two monitors, but truth be told it's a bit janky and I find it very difficult to visually tell angles (for example: what's the angle of my plane to the runway? I could use the heading indicator for that purpose but I don't want to develop bad habits for real-life flights).
The hands thing would let me flip switches in-cockpit, which is nice. No more mouse!
The thing that worries me about this is that I don't see anything mentioned about different sizes. Hats aren't all one size. Glasses aren't all one size. I have an unfortunately large skull and "one size fits all" hats never fit me.
Does this mean that there won't be an Oculus for me?
Does this mean that there won't be an Oculus for me?
It uses an elastic strap around your head, and flexible rubber surrounds for the eyepiece. It should fit just about any head.
For the devkit at least, there is an adjustment band that goes from approximately waist-sized down to babydoll-head size, so you should be covered. The only adjustment for eye separation was in software, so YMMV for that side.
In the DK2, my glasses don't fit. Which completely ruined the experience for me. Additionally, the output appeared calibrated to the lenses to avoid color shifting, but to me that ended up causing little halos of colors at the edges of objects. Hard to say for sure why it happened, but because it was so "smart", I found the 3D much less realistic than Playstation VR, which has a simpler, more permissive headset that worked better with my glasses on, with no color shifting that I could notice at the time. It was lower quality, but better, because of it.
I look forward to seeing reviews on the Oculus Rift from those with glasses ;-)
I look forward to seeing reviews on the Oculus Rift from those with glasses ;-)
I have a fairly big head as well (I can't really wear an adjustable baseball cap for instance, unless I cut my hair short), but the DK2 worked for me, with a little room to spare. It also worked for my 4 and 7 year old kids.
you can change the size of the headset with some velcro that wraps around your head
So... when does it ship?
and what will it cost?
It looks like it hasn't been announced yet:
[ While Facebook and Oculus VR aren't quite ready to reveal a price of the Rift, Luckey suggested that it'll cost more than the $350 developer's kit.
"You know, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you," Luckey said in an interview back in September. "We're roughly in that ballpark... but it's going to cost more than that. And the reason for that is that we've added a lot of technology to this thing beyond what existed in the DK1 and DK2 days."
While $350 may be too low, $1,000 seems to be too high. Elaborating on the Rift's pricing on Twitter recently, Luckey stated that Oculus VR has the backing of Facebook and doesn't need an immediate hardware profit.
"A company that has to survive on immediate hardware profit would have to hit with a much higher price - think $1000+. Not greed, reality," he tweeted. "1st gen VR users are being heavily subsidized by major players who want VR business to grow, though few seem to understand that." ]
Source of Above: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/120994/20160103/oculus-rif...
[ While Facebook and Oculus VR aren't quite ready to reveal a price of the Rift, Luckey suggested that it'll cost more than the $350 developer's kit.
"You know, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you," Luckey said in an interview back in September. "We're roughly in that ballpark... but it's going to cost more than that. And the reason for that is that we've added a lot of technology to this thing beyond what existed in the DK1 and DK2 days."
While $350 may be too low, $1,000 seems to be too high. Elaborating on the Rift's pricing on Twitter recently, Luckey stated that Oculus VR has the backing of Facebook and doesn't need an immediate hardware profit.
"A company that has to survive on immediate hardware profit would have to hit with a much higher price - think $1000+. Not greed, reality," he tweeted. "1st gen VR users are being heavily subsidized by major players who want VR business to grow, though few seem to understand that." ]
Source of Above: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/120994/20160103/oculus-rif...
The only shipping information currently available (to the public) is 'starts shipping Q1 2016'.
I'm more looking forward to seeing the Sony VR. It's rumoured to be around the $250-$350 price mark. Sony have a history of getting traction despite not having the best spec/product, for example, remember HD DVD vs Blu Ray?
I also think the Sony VR specs are pretty high. They want people to buy a PS4 and play games on their VR system.
The big advantage Sony has is they know all VR games will work well by design as all PS4s have the same spec.
No way in hell PS4 has the specs for VR.
Eh, uh, I mean Blu-ray wasn't a better product/spec than HD-DVD? I don't know about that...
Now watch this face plant in the market. It's a niche product with horrifically overinflated expectations, steep pricing, and no application ecosystem or clear, killer-app use case. Good luck folks, you're gonna need it.
I mean, i'm not going to buy it... but only because I think the vive offers a better experience. I think VR in general is pretty promising, and a bit more than "niche"
What's the use case to justify the massive cash outlay these things require? I don't see it.
I mean, immersive gameplay is a pretty big use case. To me personally, as someone who loves FPS games, that's a huge win. It's worth it to me.
When it comes to making predictions, i'd remind you of this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
When it comes to making predictions, i'd remind you of this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Use case? Video games,obviously. This is early-early adopter tech. Chill out with your absurdly premature predictions.
We're talking $1500 for the headset and GPU able to support the headset. Plus a pretty beefy workstation to feed that GPU. Plus the games don't actually exist yet, and they face a massive chicken-and-egg problem. No one but the most dedicated early adopters will buy this until the price comes down like 3x.
Anyone know if the rift would work on the newest high end model iMacs with the AMD M390? Obviously still have to run it via Windows I assume but just wondering if it would even work on them.
Your GPU has an "M" in it. I don't have hard evidence, but my experience says it won't work.
Our development for OS X and Linux has been paused in order to focus on delivering a high quality consumer-level VR experience at launch across hardware, software, and content on Windows. We want to get back to development for OS X and Linux but we don’t have a timeline.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/
Even the latest 5k iMacs don't meet the recommended spec for the Rift (due to the M390), but it will "work" ... it's just not guaranteed to perform at an optimal level.
Making predictions about the adoption of technology is always perilous. However, after using Google's cardboard camera to take a few pictures on vacation and reviewing those pictures afterward I'm a believer. There's something about the immersive nature of those images that provide a very emotional contextual experience. If one is able to experience this with albeit relatively crude technology when compared to offerings like Oculus, I think these products could be very impactful.
Wait until the light field cameras (like the Lytro Immerge) come out. It's going to blow peoples' minds.
Can anyone speak to using the Rift as an extended desktop? I've seen some mention of using it as an extended monitor in both Windows and OS X - has anyone with development devices used it with head tracking and had an almost infinite display?
How cool would it be to ditch multiple monitors and spread out over a 360 sphere code windows / browsers / documentation / etc... ? Use the head tracking to navigate the desktop world and still use the keyboard / mouse to interact.
How cool would it be to ditch multiple monitors and spread out over a 360 sphere code windows / browsers / documentation / etc... ? Use the head tracking to navigate the desktop world and still use the keyboard / mouse to interact.
For what it's worth as of SDK 0.6.0 of the Oculus you can no longer use it as an extended display. Prior to 0.6.0 you could run the Oculus in either "Extended" mode which just made it show up as an extra monitor, or in "Direct" mode where apps directly displayed their contents on the Oculus (without you having to move the window, make it full screen, etc).
What you're talking about however can easily be done with [Virtual Desktop](http://www.vrdesktop.net/) -- I've used it a few times while developing, it mostly works. It's definitely a nice experience to have your IDE infront of you, documentation a head tilt to the right, and Google a head tilt to the left, but the resolution was too low for me to be comfortable reading text for a long time on the DK2.
What you're talking about however can easily be done with [Virtual Desktop](http://www.vrdesktop.net/) -- I've used it a few times while developing, it mostly works. It's definitely a nice experience to have your IDE infront of you, documentation a head tilt to the right, and Google a head tilt to the left, but the resolution was too low for me to be comfortable reading text for a long time on the DK2.
Better link?
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/oculus-rift-pre-orders-to-...
Also, no mention of the promised Xbox One controller among the bundled items. Wonder if they'll just be sending a coupon or something in the box.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/oculus-rift-pre-orders-to-...
Also, no mention of the promised Xbox One controller among the bundled items. Wonder if they'll just be sending a coupon or something in the box.
It's in the box. Palmer has said over and over people can just sell it if they don't want it.
VR is not comparable to 3D TV because it's not TV. It's fundamentally an interactive medium over which the user has complete narrative control, yet one that doesn't feel like you're interacting with something, so much as wearing a piece of clothing. 3D TV is burdensome for very little benefit. VR is freeing for significantly greater benefit.
If you haven't tried it, you don't understand the difference between head tracking and moving a mouse around in an FPS game. They are not just different ways to move a pointer around. They are fundamentally different. They are so fundamentally different that it's actually difficult to combine the two concepts.
VR is not comparable to the Wii or the Xbox 360 with the Kinect (which were massively successful products, so I don't know what the point of comparing them is), because there is zero disconnect between motion and reaction. You aren't looking at a mirror version of yourself moving around. You're just moving around.
If you haven't tried it, you don't understand the difference between waving your hand around at the Kinect, trying to line up hits with no depth perception, and using VR with even a relatively low-res positional tracker like the Leap Motion.
If you haven't tried it, you just don't know what you're talking about. You have nothing in your life from which to draw a conclusion. That includes anyone talking about the systems from the 1990s. I can, today, in a weekend, create a full VR experience that would blow Dactyl Nightmare out of the water, and give it to you for a handful of dollars. The order of magnitude difference in realism and price is staggering. It's the between a real car and one of those RC cars that only turns when you put it in reverse, and then only in one direction. Except the real car is the one that costs $50, and the RC car was $20k.
VR is going to fulfill the promise of teleconferencing. If VR was a "flop" in the 90s, then teleconferencing definitely was, too. Talking to people face-to-face in VR is night-and-day better than using Skype or FaceTime. There is barely any comparison to be made. You forget you're using technology when having a f2f with a person in VR. And this isn't a prediction. This is available today.
The product development lifecycle is going to speed up, as VR is going to give us a new, virtualized testing cycle that isn't bottle-necked by physical prototypes just to check look-and-feel.
Architects are going to make better pitches. Universities and hospitals are going to sell more buildings and research wings to big-ticket donors. Other universities will do away with their physical presence entirely. Doctors will be able to share life-saving techniques and train other doctors across the world in the fine-motor skill to perform it. Museums are going to be able to record exhibits in full detail, into perpetuity, and provide patrons unprecedented access to artifacts that would otherwise be too sensitive to put on display in public, relatively uncontrolled environments. Psychiatrists are going to be able to treat more patients. Data scientists are going to be able to recall and organize more information.
All of these things are doable on a smartphone in a cardboard box, say nothing about the rapidly developing market of purpose-built devices. Have you not been paying attention? Technological advancement has only been accelerating. It's not going to be "many years" before these devices are any good. It's going to be two. It's going to be less time than it took the iPhone to get any good. Remember that original iPhone? That no-app-store-having, no-3G-having, no-GPS-having, no-speech-recognition-having iPhone? That glorified iPod with a relatively crappy phone crammed in it?
To quote Tom Hardy's character Eames, speaking to Joseph Gordon Levitt's character Arthur in the Christopher Nolan film INCEPTION: "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling."
If you haven't tried it, you don't understand the difference between head tracking and moving a mouse around in an FPS game. They are not just different ways to move a pointer around. They are fundamentally different. They are so fundamentally different that it's actually difficult to combine the two concepts.
VR is not comparable to the Wii or the Xbox 360 with the Kinect (which were massively successful products, so I don't know what the point of comparing them is), because there is zero disconnect between motion and reaction. You aren't looking at a mirror version of yourself moving around. You're just moving around.
If you haven't tried it, you don't understand the difference between waving your hand around at the Kinect, trying to line up hits with no depth perception, and using VR with even a relatively low-res positional tracker like the Leap Motion.
If you haven't tried it, you just don't know what you're talking about. You have nothing in your life from which to draw a conclusion. That includes anyone talking about the systems from the 1990s. I can, today, in a weekend, create a full VR experience that would blow Dactyl Nightmare out of the water, and give it to you for a handful of dollars. The order of magnitude difference in realism and price is staggering. It's the between a real car and one of those RC cars that only turns when you put it in reverse, and then only in one direction. Except the real car is the one that costs $50, and the RC car was $20k.
VR is going to fulfill the promise of teleconferencing. If VR was a "flop" in the 90s, then teleconferencing definitely was, too. Talking to people face-to-face in VR is night-and-day better than using Skype or FaceTime. There is barely any comparison to be made. You forget you're using technology when having a f2f with a person in VR. And this isn't a prediction. This is available today.
The product development lifecycle is going to speed up, as VR is going to give us a new, virtualized testing cycle that isn't bottle-necked by physical prototypes just to check look-and-feel.
Architects are going to make better pitches. Universities and hospitals are going to sell more buildings and research wings to big-ticket donors. Other universities will do away with their physical presence entirely. Doctors will be able to share life-saving techniques and train other doctors across the world in the fine-motor skill to perform it. Museums are going to be able to record exhibits in full detail, into perpetuity, and provide patrons unprecedented access to artifacts that would otherwise be too sensitive to put on display in public, relatively uncontrolled environments. Psychiatrists are going to be able to treat more patients. Data scientists are going to be able to recall and organize more information.
All of these things are doable on a smartphone in a cardboard box, say nothing about the rapidly developing market of purpose-built devices. Have you not been paying attention? Technological advancement has only been accelerating. It's not going to be "many years" before these devices are any good. It's going to be two. It's going to be less time than it took the iPhone to get any good. Remember that original iPhone? That no-app-store-having, no-3G-having, no-GPS-having, no-speech-recognition-having iPhone? That glorified iPod with a relatively crappy phone crammed in it?
To quote Tom Hardy's character Eames, speaking to Joseph Gordon Levitt's character Arthur in the Christopher Nolan film INCEPTION: "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling."
> VR is going to fulfill the promise of teleconferencing.
This is perhaps the most important aspect of VR to me. Presence with people who aren't present will be VR's killer app. Time and time again we see that messaging is the biggest use of most platforms. Messaging in VR will just be turning your head and talking to someone.
I am really interested to see whether meatspace office buildings will be able to compete with shared virtual workspaces.
Turning your head or walking across the room to ask someone a question was always the key differentiator for physical offices. VR takes that away. Maybe there is some killer feature left for offices, but I kind of think this might be the moment where the disruptive technology (telecom) overtakes the incumbent (meatspace).
This is perhaps the most important aspect of VR to me. Presence with people who aren't present will be VR's killer app. Time and time again we see that messaging is the biggest use of most platforms. Messaging in VR will just be turning your head and talking to someone.
I am really interested to see whether meatspace office buildings will be able to compete with shared virtual workspaces.
Turning your head or walking across the room to ask someone a question was always the key differentiator for physical offices. VR takes that away. Maybe there is some killer feature left for offices, but I kind of think this might be the moment where the disruptive technology (telecom) overtakes the incumbent (meatspace).
I'm actively hoping meatspace office buildings become a quaint, too-expensive-to-compete contrivance. With AR and virtual work spaces, I think it'll be possible to make people more productive than they would be without VR. If that happens, it will be economic suicide to NOT use VR. The savings in green-house gasses, the extra time people will have, the reduction in cost of living. We'd finally have a truly global economy.
Having tried both the Oculus and Glass, I'd say the Oculus is more exciting. The Glass had about the least capacity a user could tolerate - slow with few pixels. The Oculus is about the most you cram into a wearable, even if you have to pay a lot for it.
[deleted]
A pre-pre order holding page. Before this webpage I guess we were in a pre-pre-pre order state?
Is there anywhere to see a demo? Or are we just preordering?
google map of individuals with kits willing to give demos: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zOfhcB3uWEbI.k7yXLl...
Major trade shows in the coming months are your best bet. I assume you're in SF and the next best SF event to demo would be GDC in March (if you can wait that long)
I wonder if the Ephiphany day was chosen on purpose. Just kidding, can't wait!
All hail the Lawnmower Man! This is going to be the biggest flop in the history of history due to being sent back to the 90's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCxFGxqLsHE
Go Mondo2000!
Go Mondo2000!
The Oculus is the FIRST high-fidelity consumer VR experience.
And they've got the horsepower of Facebook's cash-machine as their bankroll.
Zuck gets this to the degree that I suspect he believes Facebook & VR will be synonymous within a decade (1)
Do I wish that Oculus was owned by some benevolent billionaire trickster like OASIS in Ready Player One? Sure, but come off it!
This release will mark the starting line of the change in how we interact with computers, how we capture memories, how we tell stories.
Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine.
Already in the DK2 I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
. . .
Really though, I have had some shocking experiences in the Oculus, starting with the DK1 going off the edge of a rollercoaster and feeling my stomach physically drop.
Yes this is a generation 1 product for early adopters.
Yes it's going to be expensive to buy, it won't be perfect.
But if you're browsing HN because you're a hacker / developer / dreamer you are crazy to discount how substantial this release is (especially if you haven't TRIED it yet!).
(1) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/feee4a1e-63aa-11e5-a28b-50226...