Support NeoGAF

[Bl@de]

Will the doubters please stop just thinking the world revolves around fucking video games.

VR has an insane amount of applications such as
Education
Tourism
Health/Surgery
Real estate
Sports
Experisnces
Training

Thats the point. VR is not only for videogames. It opens up possibilities for many people. Virtual city tours for people who can't travel (sickness, time, whatever), walk through the hotel/house your about to buy/visit, open courses of yale university, ....

This is about more then just games. Even if this board primarily looks at games.

 

[SparkTR]

I never said it was solely about specs. It being tethered to PC gaming is just never going to allow it hitting that mainstream regardless.

The average household is losing interest in big bulky desktop PC's at an insane rate over the last few years, at least, that is my experience.

The majority of the most played games in the world are on PC, and OEM PC sales have been on the rise this latest quarter (while Tablets are close to plateauing). Upgrade cycles have slowed (unless you're a gamer, where they have risen), but desktop PCs are still a massive industry for the mass market. Especially now that you can buy good ones that are as slim as consoles.

 

[mrklaw]

Oculus, GPU makers and game developers also need to work hard on how they deal with different PC specs. When frame rate is so critical, the mass market is not going to want to sit there pissing about with a myriad of options to adjust things. They'll want it to just work. Nvidia's profiles is a good start, but any developer making a VR focused game needs to pay attention to that IMO. Maybe not having fixed options and instead looking at dynamically varying detail settings to ensure the engine never goes over its budget per frame.

 

[Tomasoares]

I don't think VR will change that much gaming industry, but tbh, I don't really care much about it.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Oculus/VR anticipation is buzzing pretty damn hard amongst the tech crowd, not just here on GAF or gaming boards. Word of mouth has absolutely already spread, and don't forget there is no actual consumer device yet. Just development kits that Oculus have discouraged people from buying unless they're developers, potential developers or just hardcore enthusiasts.

The larger word-of-mouth message will get around once there is that consumer product available.

That's the hope of many of us, including mr. Rubin here.

I just have a hard time imagining it breaking beyond the gaming sphere anytime soon with the way they are approaching and marketing this thing.

Don't get me wrong, i'd sell my firstborn for real VR, i'm incredibly excited about the future of this tech for lots of immersion-fueled personal reasons including games. There just has to be that one product that hits the market that's extremely user-friendly, high quality and well supported by lots of varied software for all kinds of target audiences.

Basically, I want someone to do to the VR market what apple did to the tablet market. Release a finished product that blows everyone away the second they touch/use it. Globally people scoffed at the idea of the iPad and how it would never compete with laptops. But they got the first one just right and a new market was born that inspired some incredible innovation from lots of tech companies around the world.
I think OR will need that kind of a 'splash' to gather momentum, but by keeping it dependent on PC's and mostly linked to hardcore gaming heavily dampens any further-reaching excitement.

 

[Hzoltan69]

It's definitely going to be the biggest story - but we will have to see whether it's a story of success of failure.

Having purchased and used both Development Kits, I'd say 2015 is too early for VR - the promise is huge, but so many things are no there yet.

I still hope they will surprise me with CV1.

 

[Seanspeed]

That's the hope of many of us, including mr. Rubin here.

I just have a hard time imagining it breaking beyond the gaming sphere anytime soon with the way they are approaching and marketing this thing.

Don't get me wrong, i'd sell my firstborn for real VR, i'm incredibly excited about the future of this tech for lots of immersion-fueled personal reasons including games. There just has to be that one product that hits the market that's extremely user-friendly, high quality and well supported by lots of varied software for all kinds of target audiences.

Basically, I want someone to do to the VR market what apple did to the tablet market. Release a finished product that blows everyone away the second they touch/use it. Globally people scoffed at the idea of the iPad and how it would never compete with laptops. But they got the first one just right and a new market was born that inspired some incredible innovation from lots of tech companies around the world.
I think OR will need that kind of a 'splash' to gather momentum, but by keeping it dependent on PC's and mostly linked to hardcore gaming heavily dampens any further-reaching excitement.

Ironically, I think its you whose regular presence here on GAF is creating this impression that its mainly being marketed as a hardcore gaming device. I mean, there is that element to it, and these are the sorts of people Oculus are relying on being there Day 1, but Oculus are constantly going out of their way to spread the message that 'VR is not just gaming'.

If you take a look at GearVR(an Oculus product at its core, don't forget), its definitely loudly promoting its non-gaming functions. Photosharing, 360 videos, VR Cinema and now the announced partnerships with TV studios and even the NBA to watch shows and bastketball games in VR. All stuff that will(almost assuredly) be available on the Rift as well. Oculus are still a little ways from a release on the Rift, have been constantly teasing that they've got a lot of stuff in the works, and I think near release, and afterwards, we'll get more and more info about all the non-gaming experiences it will make available to people.

You're right that being linked to PC's does limit it in comparison to something like tablets and smartphones and it is unlikely to sell massive numbers immediately like those, but that doesn't mean it cant make a splash. Personal computers were not accessible or affordable for everyone when they first came out. Same thing with TV's. Hell, even cell phones took a while before affordable, pocket-sized versions were selling by the boatload. But these were all still a big deal when they came out and all did take root.

 

[Nikodemos]

Sony is the best positioned in the market right now: they can bundle Morpheus with PS4 and sell a complete "VR deck" (lol, so late '80s) that removes the need for the end-user to fiddle with settings (just add broadband connection). All they need is to figure out the right price. Don't fuck it up, Sony.

 

[warthog]

Sony is the best positioned in the market right now: they can bundle Morpheus with PS4 and sell a complete "VR deck" (lol, so late '80s) that removes the need for the end-user to fiddle with settings (just add broadband connection). All they need is to figure out the right price. Don't fuck it up, Sony.

The right price and the right tech.

 

[Krejlooc]

Sony is the best positioned in the market right now: they can bundle Morpheus with PS4 and sell a complete "VR deck" (lol, so late '80s) that removes the need for the end-user to fiddle with settings (just add broadband connection). All they need is to figure out the right price. Don't fuck it up, Sony.

Samsung already has this on the market. And it's performing well beyond expectations.

 

[astroturfing]

Sony is the best positioned in the market right now: they can bundle Morpheus with PS4 and sell a complete "VR deck" (lol, so late '80s) that removes the need for the end-user to fiddle with settings (just add broadband connection). All they need is to figure out the right price. Don't fuck it up, Sony.

is the PS4 powerful enough to handle great VR content? i was under the impression that it isn't. just smaller experiences like pinball games or something?

 

[mrklaw]

That's the hope of many of us, including mr. Rubin here.

I just have a hard time imagining it breaking beyond the gaming sphere anytime soon with the way they are approaching and marketing this thing.

Don't get me wrong, i'd sell my firstborn for real VR, i'm incredibly excited about the future of this tech for lots of immersion-fueled personal reasons including games. There just has to be that one product that hits the market that's extremely user-friendly, high quality and well supported by lots of varied software for all kinds of target audiences.

Basically, I want someone to do to the VR market what apple did to the tablet market. Release a finished product that blows everyone away the second they touch/use it. Globally people scoffed at the idea of the iPad and how it would never compete with laptops. But they got the first one just right and a new market was born that inspired some incredible innovation from lots of tech companies around the world.
I think OR will need that kind of a 'splash' to gather momentum, but by keeping it dependent on PC's and mostly linked to hardcore gaming heavily dampens any further-reaching excitement.

I don't think it'll be linked to hardcore gaming for exactly the reasons you give - requiring a big PC.

It does sound like Oculus want it to be just right when it launches, and Gear VR is a pretty positive step forward considering it is 'just' a phone in a shell.

IMO this will do well when it gets shown on Ellen or Oprah or breakfast TV and you have well known faces making cooing noises as they're transported to an NBA game or surrounded by zombies in The Walking Dead.

 

[Krejlooc]

I don't think it'll be linked to hardcore gaming for exactly the reasons you give - requiring a big PC.

It does sound like Oculus want it to be just right when it launches, and Gear VR is a pretty positive step forward considering it is 'just' a phone in a shell.

IMO this will do well when it gets shown on Ellen or Oprah or breakfast TV and you have well known faces making cooing noises as they're transported to an NBA game or surrounded by zombies in The Walking Dead.

How about south park or jimmy fallon or good morning america?

 

[cakefoo]

is the PS4 powerful enough to handle great VR content? i was under the impression that it isn't. just smaller experiences like pinball games or something?

Project Cars is a demanding racing sim on PC- it will support Morpheus on PS4.

 

[Zabant]

with the amount of naysayers and people shitting on VR these days (without even trying it) it almost guarantee's it'l be a success

 

[Alienous]

Project Cars is a demanding racing sim on PC- it will support Morpheus on PS4.

Sure it will.

 

[Seanspeed]

Project Cars is a demanding racing sim on PC- it will support Morpheus on PS4.

I'm quite interested how that is going to work.

I mean, if a Note4 can do meaningful VR, a PS4 obviously can too, but PS4 owners will be in it for the gaming. Games built from the ground up for VR will obviously be the easiest to make work for Morpheus, but yea, games like Project Cars are going to need a lot of dialling back. Its going to take extra work on the developer's part to create a specific 'VR Mode' for the game that uses different graphics settings and effects and will require re-optimization for whatever resolution and framerate level that Morpheus goes with in the end. It will also need VR-specific UI and control elements. Its going to require a fair effort on the developer's part to get it working well alongside the traditional 2D mode, that's for sure. But its nowhere near impossible.

 

[Joni]

Let 'em continue to doubt you, Rubin.

Remember how everyone forgot about Dave Perry? Not doing so bad now, is he?

Same thing will happen with Rubin and VR. Nothing sits in the pot long enough to be considered revolutionary anymore. Instead, you'll simply see it continue to grow and the tech get better, and better, and...

There is nothing revolutionary about what Rubin is doing at Oculus Rift. He was just hired to lead their first party development six months ago. David Perry is really the guy behind Gaikai. People forgot about Rubin because he has accomplished very little in the gaming space since he left Naughty Dog.

 

[Durante]

Too many people are reading "biggest story" as "biggest commercial success". The Rift won't reach the mainstream customer in 2015, but that doesn't prevent its release to be the one technology even marked down in the history books for this year.

Having had the privilege of an Occulus representative come demo some games on the DK2 at the studio I was working at late last year, I can safely say that playing Alien Isolation and the Elite demo was absolutely mindblowing. Nothing, in all my 20+ years of playing games even comes close in terms of the sheer immersive experience.

So excited to get my hands on a consumer kit!

Nice to see that they are doing that kind of outreach. Also, one "c"

 

[slavesnyder]

I am sceptical about OR.
First, VR is cool for everything that demands full attention. Design work and gaming. Here, you stay concentrated on something for at roundabout half an hour and have your hands in use on something. (same goes for porn, but this is another discussion)
For passive entertainment like TV or chatting or whatever it is not practical. you never know where your coffee pot or your chips are. sounds stupid as reason, but i believe that vr helmets are really unconvenient and people will use it less when the novelty wears off.

Also, OR has the problem that it is married to PC at the moment, an unreliable partner with a thousand faces. this is a huge problem for the mass market. would have been better to adopt it to a box with fixed specifications (like a game console). maybe they can work something out that pc specs are not as important (cloud processing or whatever), but at the moment the biggest story of 2015 might be OR launch, but if the story is a success is unsecure.

 

[mrklaw]

I'm quite interested how that is going to work.

I mean, if a Note4 can do meaningful VR, a PS4 obviously can too, but PS4 owners will be in it for the gaming. Games built from the ground up for VR will obviously be the easiest to make work for Morpheus, but yea, games like Project Cars are going to need a lot of dialling back. Its going to take extra work on the developer's part to create a specific 'VR Mode' for the game that uses different graphics settings and effects and will require re-optimization for whatever resolution and framerate level that Morpheus goes with in the end. It will also need VR-specific UI and control elements. Its going to require a fair effort on the developer's part to get it working well alongside the traditional 2D mode, that's for sure. But its nowhere near impossible.

Existing PS4 owners might be in it for the gaming, but PS4 is also a pretty affordable route in for those interested in VR. If it gets some traction, then I could see people picking up PS4 morpheus bundles rather than the (likely) significantly higher cost and higher technical hurdles to get a PC setup running

 

[Vitet]

Maybe it's a USA thing, but here no one knows Oculus outside the typical stand on a VG congress

 

[Zabant]

I am sceptical about OR.
First, VR is cool for everything that demands full attention. Design work and gaming. Here, you stay concentrated on something for at roundabout half an hour and have your hands in use on something. (same goes for porn, but this is another discussion)
For passive entertainment like TV or chatting or whatever it is not practical. you never know where your coffee pot or your chips are. sounds stupid as reason, but i believe that vr helmets are really unconvenient and people will use it less when the novelty wears off.

Also, OR has the problem that it is married to PC at the moment, an unreliable partner with a thousand faces. this is a huge problem for the mass market. would have been better to adopt it to a box with fixed specifications (like a game console). maybe they can work something out that pc specs are not as important (cloud processing or whatever), but at the moment the biggest story of 2015 might be OR launch, but if the story is a success is unsecure.

i'd say that consoles and console gaming have been just as- if not more unreliable as the PC market in terms of a gaming platform recently.

Broken games, service drop-outs and many more issues were basically the story of 2014.

 

[Can Crusher]

It will need a few years for the price to have mass market reach, and more importantly it will need killer content.

In theory it is the future, but so was 3D and shit.

 

[Seanspeed]

Existing PS4 owners might be in it for the gaming, but PS4 is also a pretty affordable route in for those interested in VR. If it gets some traction, then I could see people picking up PS4 morpheus bundles rather than the (likely) significantly higher cost and higher technical hurdles to get a PC setup running

Yea, I mean, Sony would be mad not to try and incorporate a fair bit of VR media functionality into the PS4/Morpheus package, but I think as a percentage, it will be more gaming focused than media focused compared to the Rift.

Will definitely provide a fairly affordable platform for people to get into VR though, no doubt. Really looking forward to it. If its got some great software offerings(gaming or non-gaming) that I cant get on the Rift, it may well be what gets me to pick up a PS4 finally, hopefully as a Morpheus bundle like you mentioned.

 

[slavesnyder]

i'd say that consoles and console gaming have been just as- if not more unreliable as the PC market in terms of a gaming platform recently.

Broken games, service drop-outs and many more issues were basically the story of 2014.

I am talking of ease of use and foolproofness (does this word exist?) and here the PC is still behind. you simply have to be more skilled to get things run on the pc.
maybe the next generation of tablets, kings of convenience, can handle VR. this could get interesting...

 

[Can Crusher]

Also there are intangibles. Will VR only be practical for loners who either live alone or live in their bedroom only coming out to open the fridge?

 

[Zabant]

I am talking of ease of use and foolproofness (does this word exist?) and here the PC is still behind. you simply have to be more skilled to get things run on the pc.
maybe the next generation of tablets, kings of convenience, can handle VR. this could get interesting...

Skilled isn't the word i'd use.

Willing to take 5 minutes to read instructions is more like it.

 

[eso76]

Him being the "head of Oculus' first party game studio" aside, yeah, definitely.

 

[Nikodemos]

Samsung already has this on the market. And it's performing well beyond expectations.

The Gear VR's performance, in spite of the hurdles (the Note 4 is crazy expensive without a plan, and Note 4-tier plans tend to be a bit of a rip-off), makes me confident that a PS4 VR bundle for the right price ($549 for a PS4+controller+camera+Morpheus+a kawaii kohai sim freeform explorer game) will do quite well.

Also there are intangibles. Will VR only be practical for loners who either live alone or live in their bedroom only coming out to open the fridge?

I can already see the headlines: "Japan's hikikomori population triples!"

 

[jem0208]

Will the doubters please stop just thinking the world revolves around fucking video games.

VR has an insane amount of applications such as
Education
Tourism
Health/Surgery
Real estate
Sports
Experisnces
Training

I'm curious, what exactly is it going to add to these fields that a standard screen can't achieve? Beyond being a bit more immersive?

It also has limitations for these fields, only a single user can actually interact with it at a time. Whereas you can have large numbers of people viewing a single screen. You'll also have the headset, anytime you want to interact with something like that you'll have to put your headset on and become completely blind to the outside world.

I think it'll have some uses, I think it'll be very cool for gaming but I don't think it's going to have this revolutionary impact many people are saying it will. It's basically just another way to look at a screen...

 

[mrklaw]

I'm curious, what exactly is it going to add to these fields that a standard screen can't achieve? Beyond being a bit more immersive?

It also has limitations for these fields, only a single user can actually interact with it at a time. Whereas you can have large numbers of people viewing a single screen. You'll also have the headset, anytime you want to interact with something like that you'll have to put your headset on and become completely blind to the outside world.

I think it'll have some uses, I think it'll be very cool for gaming but I don't think it's going to have this revolutionary impact many people are saying it will. It's basically just another way to look at a screen...

being virtually transported to a house to allow you to view it without having to go there is hugely different from looking at some photos on a website.

You say its just another way to look at a screen like its a bad thing - but like the ipad being 'just a big phone' - that can actually lead to a significantly different user experience.

 

[asker]

I'm curious, what exactly is it going to add to these fields that a standard screen can't achieve?

Perception of depth

 

[jem0208]

being virtually transported to a house to allow you to view it without having to go there is hugely different from looking at some photos on a website.

You say its just another way to look at a screen like its a bad thing - but like the ipad being 'just a big phone' - that can actually lead to a significantly different user experience.

Is it really? I don't see much difference between looking at images or videos on a monitor than seeing them with VR. You're still going to be seeing static snapshots. Also the problem of only having one user at a time appears.

And I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing, it's very cool, I just don't think it's going to revolutionize technology.

 

[mrklaw]

I'm curious, what exactly is it going to add to these fields that a standard screen can't achieve? Beyond being a bit more immersive?

You're in Paris, standing in front of the Eiffel Tower, taking a photo of it using your smartphone. The picture on the screen looks pretty good. Now put your phone in your pocket. Doesn't that look quite a lot better? And you can look around at your surroundings, hear the sounds all around you - you're completely immersed. Looking at a screen is just dipping your toe in the water.

 

[Betta Lines]

I'm curious, what exactly is it going to add to these fields that a standard screen can't achieve? Beyond being a bit more immersive?

Perception of depth

Perception of scale is more important.

 

[mrklaw]

Perception of scale is more important.

when playing an early version of Minecrift on a lowly DK1, the blocks were so damn real I would honestly stand there for a while in front of a stone block wondering what it felt like.

I can't imagine how good CV1 will be on even simple games and experiences.

 

[Nzyme32]

Is it really? I don't see much difference between looking at images or videos on a monitor than seeing them with VR. You're still going to be seeing static snapshots. Also the problem of only having one user at a time appears.

And I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing, it's very cool, I just don't think it's going to revolutionize technology.

Because it isn't a flat video or picture. There is scale, and depth and the sensation of being in that environment. As an architect or designer, to be able to be there in person and view your prototype design as if it was built and edit and redesign it on the fly, and demonstrate it to partners, investors and alike, is huge.

 

[Seanspeed]

I don't see much difference between looking at images or videos on a monitor than seeing them with VR.

There's a profound difference. I think you and others are obviously having trouble wrapping your head around it without having tried it, but you will get it once you do. A high FoV(relatively) combined with a real sense of depth and scale create a seriously powerful new way to experience digital media.

 

[jem0208]

You're in Paris, standing in front of the Eiffel Tower, taking a photo of it using your smartphone. The picture on the screen looks pretty good. Now put your phone in your pocket. Doesn't that look quite a lot better? And you can look around at your surroundings, hear the sounds all around you - you're completely immersed. Looking at a screen is just dipping your toe in the water.

A similar experience could be achieved by watching a 360 degrees webcam on your monitor or TV screen, you can look around, hear the sounds etc. but you don't have to strap a screen to your face. Sure it's less immersive, however you still receive all the same information. Also other people can watch with you, you can look at that house with your SO or family and discuss it, you can decide whether you both like Paris together instead of taking turns.

I'm not saying it isn't cool, it's not revolutionary though.

Because it isn't a flat video or picture. There is scale, and depth and the sensation of being in that environment. As an architect or designer, to be able to be there in person and view your prototype design as if it was built and edit and redesign it on the fly, and demonstrate it to partners, investors and alike, is huge.

This is a niche use I can understand and agree that having VR would be a great benefit. Still a niche though.

 

[Dr. Buni]

Still don't believe VR will be a big thing, but I am not going to write it off before trying it. The attitude of the people excited for VR is obnoxious as fuck, btw.

"Naysayers can already go hide in a corner" hahaha XD

 

[RayMaker]

A new graphics card, maybe a better next gen investment for me then either of the 2 consoles? Its certainly a very tough choice for gamers on a limited budget who want the best option.

The thing with Vr is that its a new platform, and like any new gaming platform it needs content, quality, value and accesability I'm not sure if a company is willing to invest enough for these things to become reality.
Does the Facebook money include these things? If it does not launch like a new console in a neat affordable package that includes everything u need to just plug it in your PC install the software and your ready to go, and at launch it will need a good range of apps to show why this thing is so good.

If they just do a quiet launch I doubht it will get more sales then the development kit.

 

[Klyka]

Isn't the problem with the rift that you need a pretty crazy high end setup to have every game run at 120+fps?

 

[Auto-Reply]

Is it really? I don't see much difference between looking at images or videos on a monitor than seeing them with VR. You're still going to be seeing static snapshots. Also the problem of only having one user at a time appears.

And I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing, it's very cool, I just don't think it's going to revolutionize technology.

You should watch an Abrash presentation on this subject if you can spare the time/have the interest. He sold me on the "presense" factor of VR by simply describing what the difference is between watching at a TV and experiencing it through VR.

 

[Seanspeed]

A similar experience could be achieved by watching a 360 degrees webcam on your monitor or TV screen, you can look around, hear the sounds etc. but you don't have to strap a screen to your face. Sure it's less immersive, however you still receive all the same information. Also other people can watch with you, you can look at that house with your SO or family and discuss it, you can decide whether you both like Paris together instead of taking turns.

I'm not saying it isn't cool, it's not revolutionary though.

It is not the same. Not by a mile.

It is very hard to describe just how incredible and 'new' it is to see something in VR. We are obviously not doing a good enough job explaining it to you, but all I can say is that you can see something a thousand times on a flat display and then when you see it in VR, it will almost be like seeing it for the first time. It demonstrates just how limited and poor 2D displays are for getting across that same information. It seems adequate when that's all you know and what you're used to, but VR changes this.

 

[dogflaps]

I've played through the entirety of Half-Life 2 and Episodes 1 + 2 on the Rift. It was more fun that I've had in any recent game for possibly the last 5 years. It really made me feel like a kid again, loading up the PS1 for the first time and just being blown away by 3d games and the potential it had. Sure, games have improved massively since then but they've always just been upgraded versions of the same idea. Compare GTA 3 to GTA 5. Whilst GTA 5 is improved in every way, you're still just sitting with a controller in your hand, staring at a TV.

The Rift, for me, feels like the first game changer since 3d gaming all those years ago. Playing Far Cry 4 feels wasted on a monitor.

 

[ninjabat]

Wonder how many studios are actually making games for this.

 

[Lernaean]

For me, in a year when Zelda U, MGSV:TPP and P5 are being released, a helmet by facebook is the least interesting story. But that's for me again.

 

[MrCunningham]

Obviously the biggest story of 2015 will be the one that nobody will see coming in advance. But I guess the Rift will be pretty big news when the first commercial version will get released.

 

[asker]

It's not revolutionary though.

It is a technological leap perhaps bigger than the advent of color television and cinema. By having a separate image for each eye, we're simulating another facet of our vision as it appears to us, which would be depth perception. Is it perhaps this fundamental difference that you're missing?