Support NeoGAF

[plagiarize]

This is pretty much conclusively disproven at this point. They make different trade-offs, and neither is objectively superior in the types of artifacts it causes. If anything, some people who have analyzed them all have noted a slight preference for the Vive optics over the CV1 optics.

What is clear is that the Vive offers a larger FoV, both horizontally and especially vertically, and that is has the advantage of configurable eye relief distance (which was also available in Rift DK2 but not in CV1)

Then I'm not seeing why you are seemingly trying to portray a situation in which both companies are equally "at fault". One champions an open API, one an API which is legally locked down.

I don't trust any for-profit company farther than I can throw them, that's why I judge them by their present and past verifiable actions. And those paint a clear picture.

Durante man, I *hugely* respect you. In the past you have even convinced me to change my opinion on things. I am also well aware that try as I might to avoid it, that I will always be slightly biased towards Oculus thanks to the free headset they've given me. I'm open about that, because I used to write game reviews and I understand that anyone who thinks free gifts don't effect them, is just sticking their head in the sand.

But I'm also seeing a clear bias on your side towards the Vive. You ignore all the people who have used both headsets that say FOV difference are negligible. You ignore that talking about horizontal and vertical FOV when the Vive's FOV shape is round instead of Oculus's more square display (and I know round is your preference, which is fair enough) is misleading.

And yes, some people who have analyzed both headsets *all* say the Vive has superior optics. What a trainwreck of a statement that is.

Here's something I never said: *Equally at fault*. Here's something I did say: I don't see how Oculus are a sinner and Valve are a saint.

Like, maybe you look at the APIs and think one is open and one is closed, but I don't. I see one that is more closed than the other.

I'm sure you were around when Steam launched. Aside from a period where they were being really shitty about keeping out certain titles (like The Pinball Arcade) I've always liked the platform. When it launched it was seen by many people as highly anti consumer to force everyone who wanted to play Half Life 2 to install Valve's store.

Now such things aren't seen as anti consumer anymore because people like the platform. Turns out we don't mind being forced to install good software... but it doesn't make it pro consumer to force steam on people.

Again, I like the platform, but I'm not blind to it being in Valve's financial interests to find ways to get us all to install it.

As things stand Oculus are getting all the bad press over the situation, Valve are getting a nice PR boost and Vive owners are losing out on games while being kept out of Oculus's store. Whoever you want to blame for that, it's clearly something that doesn't hurt Valve at all and it clearly doesn't benefit people that own the Vive.

Me pointing this out... isn't in defence of Oculus. I just don't see both sides as blameless as yourself and many others do.

I don't want Oculus Home to fail. Nor do I want SteamVR to fail. Both of these companies have a financial interest in their own platform succeeding out over the other however.

All that said, I still think they'll figure this out between themselves. If they weren't still in talks and if Oculus had really made some ridiculous demands, then Valve would be talking about it.

Take a look at this again:

Just like Palmer, Gabe doesn't answer the question instead deflecting the discussion to the fact that Oculus aren't selling their software on Steam. Gosh, why might Gabe want Oculus to sell their software on steam? I'm sure both companies are still trying to work this out... and I'm sure the hang up on both sides is based on wanting to protect their platform, rather than consumers. Because neither of them are denying that they've been in talks and neither of them are spilling the beans on the other one. Both are still hoping to work this out, I fully believe and I hope it happens for everyone with a VR headset.

Which oculus funded titles are available on steam?

What Valve funded titles don't force me to install their storefront if I want to play them? Maybe you see a huge difference between being able to buy steam games anywhere but having to play them through steam, and only being able to buy Oculus funded titles from the Oculus store, but I don't. And don't miss the implication in that sentence that I do see *some* difference. Neither is pro consumer even if one is less anti consumer.

 

[Haint]

By "lens rays issue", you mean the ghosting of bright objects in a high-contrast environment?

If so, the Vive has lens rays issues as well. I thought I read that Oculus' HMD didn't have these issues due to them using a better/different type of lens?

Yeah

White against a black environment can approach an effect almost that pronounced. It's so bad it looks like an intentionally rendered god ray effect. I'm not trying to make any comparisons to Vive, just commenting on CV1. This guys write up compares the effect in all of them in the Glare Test section. No idea how Vive fares in practice, but the difference from DK2 is staggering.

 

[FlyinJ]

Yeah

White against a black environment can approach an effect almost that pronounced. It's so bad it looks like an intentionally rendered god ray effect. I'm not trying to make any comparisons to Vive, just commenting on CV1. This guys write up compareshttp://doc-ok.org/?p=1414 the effect in all of them in the Glare Test section. No idea how Vive fares in practice, but the difference from DK2 is staggering.

Yeah, when I was using Tiltbrush on the Vive I actually thought it was some kind of shader effect on the in-game controller representations.

Are you saying that the DK2 didn't have the contrast artifacts that are present in the CV1 and Vive? I don't remember this particular type of artifacting in my DK2.

 

[Monger]

Valve developed titles will be available only on Steam but will support OpenVR and the Rift. Third party developers which received financial and technical support from HTC and Valve can publish on Home if they want. How are these situations comparable?

’ Brien did say that like Oculus, HTC is also funding some developers. While Ó Brien wouldn’t tell us which ones, or how much of the budget HTC had contributed, he did say that none of them were forced to sign exclusivity contracts.

 

[plagiarize]

Yeah, when I was using Tiltbrush on the Vive I actually thought it was some kind of shader effect on the in-game controller representations.

Are you saying that the DK2 didn't have the contrast artifacts that are present in the CV1 and Vive? I don't remember this particular type of artifacting in my DK2.

It's the type of lenses. Fresnel lenses cause this artifact but allow for a much larger sweet spot. Personally I think the trade off is absolutely worth it.

 

[Man]

Video: First Space RTS game confirmed. Velocity Angels.

Action legit goes from 0--> 100, real quick.

Looking very early but definitly a genre we need asap.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Valve developed titles will be available only on Steam but will support OpenVR and the Rift. Third party developers which received financial and technical support from HTC and Valve can publish on Home if they want. How are these situations comparable?

I'm pretty sure third party developers that received help from Oculus can also publish on other platforms and for other hardware if they want to. It's just the 1st party games that are unlikely to get support for other HMDs.

 

[plagiarize]

Valve developed titles will be available only on Steam but will support OpenVR and the Rift. Third party developers which received financial and technical support from HTC and Valve can publish on Home if they want. How are these situations comparable?

Who said they were? My question to you was as much a response to your post as your question was to mine. You didn't respond to anything I actually wrote. You just said 'but Oculus do a worse thing!'.

 

[Durante]

Durante man, I *hugely* respect you. In the past you have even convinced me to change my opinion on things. I am also well aware that try as I might to avoid it, that I will always be slightly biased towards Oculus thanks to the free headset they've given me. I'm open about that, because I used to write game reviews and I understand that anyone who thinks free gifts don't effect them, is just sticking their head in the sand.

I'm also getting a free Rift.

But I'm also seeing a clear bias on your side towards the Vive.

I prefer technologically superior hardware, and I prefer more open software.

I've never made a secret out of either of those stances, and I'll readily admit to both. In fact, I am proud of them!

You ignore all the people who have used both headsets that say FOV difference are negligible.

I ignore that, because we now have a perfectly sound investigation which takes into account all factors (binocular FoV, eye relief distance etc.), and its results are rather clear (110° x 113° for Vive and 94° x 93° for the Rift). This does induce a pixel density tradeoff, but the FoV question is independent of that and quite frankly resolved at this point. I don't see a point in relying on hearsay when we have data.

And yes, some people who have analyzed both headsets *all* say the Vive has superior optics. What a trainwreck of a statement that is.

Nit picking word choices? Come on, you can do better than that.

Like, maybe you look at the APIs and think one is open and one is closed, but I don't. I see one that is more closed than the other.

That's sophistry.

I can write a game using the completely open OSVR API and publish it on Steam, for Vive. I can't publish it on the Oculus store. What say you?

Again, I like the platform, but I'm not blind to it being in Valve's financial interests to find ways to get us all to install it.

Who exactly are you talking to here? See my earlier statement about trusting corporations as far as I can throw them and judging them purely by facts.

 

[pj]

It's not oculus' fault that vive cant be used on oculus home, but it is oculus' choice.

They could easily build support on top of the steamvr layer, just as valve did in the opposite direction, but they choose not to. It's technically possible for vive to be supported by the oculus sdk natively, which is what oculus wants, but it's unknown how much that has been pursued and who if anyone is blocking it.

 

[plagiarize]

And let me make something clear. Which headset has better optics is going to be a matter of preference, just as it is between the Galaxy S6 and Note 5 on GearVR. Everything is a trade off in optics and whether the cost of that trade off is worth the gain will vary from person to person.

I completely understand why Valve wanted more FOV for room scale, but to exclusively talk FOV and ignore that increasing the FOV brings with it downsides... well it's somewhat frustrating, just as it would be if people were only talking about the disadvantages of Valve's decision.

Oculus didn't target high FOV as their priority. They could have. They didn't. They may or may not have been wrong to do this, but higher FOV doesn't equal better in every circumstance given it's trade offs. Like playing Pinball in VR, for example.

We're going to be looking at tradeoffs for a long time. More resolution and higher hz will bring with them higher PC requirements. Less optical artifacts will increase the cost of the optics. Etc etc. That's why having multiple successful headsets is a good thing. I want multiple prices of entry. I want headsets that cater to different priorities. I want competiting platforms, as that competition will speed up the evolution of those platforms.

 

[pj]

And let me make something clear. Which headset has better optics is going to be a matter of preference, just as it is between the Galaxy S6 and Note 5 on GearVR. Everything is a trade off in optics and whether the cost of that trade off is worth the gain will vary from person to person.

I completely understand why Valve wanted more FOV for room scale, but to exclusively talk FOV and ignore that increasing the FOV brings with it downsides... well it's somewhat frustrating, just as it would be if people were only talking about the disadvantages of Valve's decision.

Oculus didn't target high FOV as their priority. They could have. They didn't. They may or may not have been wrong to do this, but higher FOV doesn't equal better in every circumstance given it's trade offs. Like playing Pinball in VR, for example.

We're going to be looking at tradeoffs for a long time. More resolution and higher hz will bring with them higher PC requirements. Less optical artifacts will increase the cost of the optics. Etc etc. That's why having multiple successful headsets is a good thing. I want multiple prices of entry. I want headsets that cater to different priorities. I want competiting platforms, as that competition will speed up the evolution of those platforms.

Just to stir the shit a little, which company do you think is more interested in fostering competition between HMDs? valve or facebook?

 

[plagiarize]

I'm also getting a free Rift.

I prefer technologically superior hardware, and I prefer more open software.

I've never made a secret out of either of those stances, and I'll readily admit to both. In fact, I am proud of them!

I'm not asking you to change any of that. But I don't think it's established that the Vive is 'technologically superior'. That you talk about that as if it's a fact is why I think you have a bias here, based on your preference for room scale VR and on your dislike for the fact Oculus are selling exclusives. That you have legitimate reasons to prefer one over the other, doesn't prevent you from being biased when looking at other things... which brings me to:

I ignore that, because we now have a perfectly sound investigation which takes into account all factors (binocular FoV, eye relief distance etc.), and its results are rather clear (110° x 113° for Vive and 94° x 93° for the Rift). This does induce a pixel density tradeoff, but the FoV question is independent of that and quite frankly resolved at this point. I don't see a point in relaying on hearsay when we have data.

There are differences. They are negligible according to people who have gone hands on with both headsets. Data is just numbers, it only becomes information when meaning is assigned to it. Yes one number is higher than the other. I have never disputed this. That's no reason to ignore everyone who says the difference in use is basically unimportant.

And again, Palmer was completely right to point out that those numbers are misleading, when one is an oval and one is closer to a square. They overstate the real world difference. That article openly talked about its binocular measurements having a very low level of confidence too.

It would be misleading if I said 'the diagonal FOVs of the Rift and the Vive are the same' and didn't mention that a diagonal comparison is literally the worst case comparison for the Vive. Horizontal and vertical are, similarly, the worst case comparison for the rift, given the different FOV shapes. And you didn't feel the need to wait for a better comparison than the original one before thinking the matter was decided. So yes, that makes me think you're biased here.

Nit picking word choices? Come on, you can do better than that.

I don't know what you were trying to say. That sentence was meaningless. Sorry.

That's sophistry.

I can write a game using the completely open OSVR API and publish it on Steam, for Vive. I can't publish it on the Oculus store. What say you?

I'll repeat what I said before, I think Oculus should support other SDKs on their store. I'll keep repeating it if you need me to.

Who exactly are you talking to here? See my earlier statement about trusting corporations as far as I can throw them and judging them purely by facts.

Recently, with Oculus and Windows store (and in the past with Origin for a time) I have seen people getting upset that they can't buy certain games from Steam. It's obviously a big problem in the eyes of some people. It's never something I've focused on. I've always been more interested in the actual platforms I have to use to run those games. For me the issue with UWPs isn't that you can or can't buy them on Steam, it's that they are overly restrictive and missing key features I get from regular software.

That's why when people say 'But you can buy steam works games from anywhere' that it doesn't really register much with me. I see a small difference from 'this game can only be bought on this platform' to 'this game can only be played on this platform'.

I'm not trying to bring everyone else to my way of thinking by saying that, more trying to highlight my way of thinking.

I only ever see you talking about the *advantages* of the Vive. Ignoring that it does in fact have disadvantages. I regularly recommend the Vive to people. Just yesterday I was criticizing Oculus's apparent decision to only support gamepad controls and not allow me to play the Vanishing of Ethan Carter using a mouse and keyboard when in my experience I find analogue stick turning to make me somewhat nauseous and mouse aiming not to.

Right now you can afford to buy the Vive. You want the Vive, so the Rift isn't something you need to rely on. Right now I can't really afford anything, so the value of the Rift to me, is much more than the value of the Rift to you. That we both got free Rifts doesn't mean that they're equally valuable and equally likely to bias us both. I haven't even got $10 to spare to buy Ocean Rift right now.

Just to stir the shit a little, which company do you think is more interested in fostering competition between HMDs? valve or facebook?

Facebook is clearly more invested in the hardware side of things than Valve are. Valve need the HTC Vive to establish the room scale feature set and to establish Steam VR as a platform, but beyond that, if something else comes along from another company and blows it out of the water, they won't really care at that point, so long as Steam VR is the leading VR platform and the hardware supports the kind of experiences they want to make. Neither is interested in fostering competition between the platforms though, imho. Both want their platform to be the dominant one and don't really care if the other succeeds or fails.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Durante man, I *hugely* respect you. In the past you have even convinced me to change my opinion on things. I am also well aware that try as I might to avoid it, that I will always be slightly biased towards Oculus thanks to the free headset they've given me. I'm open about that, because I used to write game reviews and I understand that anyone who thinks free gifts don't effect them, is just sticking their head in the sand.

But I'm also seeing a clear bias on your side towards the Vive. You ignore all the people who have used both headsets that say FOV difference are negligible. You ignore that talking about horizontal and vertical FOV when the Vive's FOV shape is round instead of Oculus's more square display (and I know round is your preference, which is fair enough) is misleading.

And yes, some people who have analyzed both headsets *all* say the Vive has superior optics. What a trainwreck of a statement that is.

Here's something I never said: *Equally at fault*. Here's something I did say: I don't see how Oculus are a sinner and Valve are a saint.

Like, maybe you look at the APIs and think one is open and one is closed, but I don't. I see one that is more closed than the other.

I'm sure you were around when Steam launched. Aside from a period where they were being really shitty about keeping out certain titles (like The Pinball Arcade) I've always liked the platform. When it launched it was seen by many people as highly anti consumer to force everyone who wanted to play Half Life 2 to install Valve's store.

Now such things aren't seen as anti consumer anymore because people like the platform. Turns out we don't mind being forced to install good software... but it doesn't make it pro consumer to force steam on people.

Again, I like the platform, but I'm not blind to it being in Valve's financial interests to find ways to get us all to install it.

As things stand Oculus are getting all the bad press over the situation, Valve are getting a nice PR boost and Vive owners are losing out on games while being kept out of Oculus's store. Whoever you want to blame for that, it's clearly something that doesn't hurt Valve at all and it clearly doesn't benefit people that own the Vive.

Me pointing this out... isn't in defence of Oculus. I just don't see both sides as blameless as yourself and many others do.

I don't want Oculus Home to fail. Nor do I want SteamVR to fail. Both of these companies have a financial interest in their own platform succeeding out over the other however.

All that said, I still think they'll figure this out between themselves. If they weren't still in talks and if Oculus had really made some ridiculous demands, then Valve would be talking about it.

Take a look at this again:

Just like Palmer, Gabe doesn't answer the question instead deflecting the discussion to the fact that Oculus aren't selling their software on Steam. Gosh, why might Gabe want Oculus to sell their software on steam? I'm sure both companies are still trying to work this out... and I'm sure the hang up on both sides is based on wanting to protect their platform, rather than consumers. Because neither of them are denying that they've been in talks and neither of them are spilling the beans on the other one. Both are still hoping to work this out, I fully believe and I hope it happens for everyone with a VR headset.


What Valve funded titles don't force me to install their storefront if I want to play them? Maybe you see a huge difference between being able to buy steam games anywhere but having to play them through steam, and only being able to buy Oculus funded titles from the Oculus store, but I don't. And don't miss the implication in that sentence that I do see *some* difference. Neither is pro consumer even if one is less anti consumer.

Well, first off he never said both sides where blameless he said they weren't of "equal blame" and I wholeheartedly agree.

Sure both of these companies want to bring in money and be relevant, the thing is that the precedent has been set in the minds of the PC masses mostly by Valve and also by others for the way things work in the PC space and the major majority of the people like it. If Occulus had followed suit along with everyone else and not stirred the pot the way they have with their walled garden plan I garunflippintee that people would have followed them even outside of steam and we wouldn't be in this mess to this degree. Even though it would be a slow start it would feel better than having their foot shoved through the door rather than knocking. I mean this was originally a grass roots movement after all and they had all of the support in the world from the community and heck, even Valve. I and I think many others, would have gladly given support to oculus home because of Palmer and his team if they had stayed an open platform.

But then Facebook happened. Like I've said, with Valve we know what we are getting but Facebook is an unknown quantity in this space except for what we are seeing with the way things have been handled so far and what I have seen isn't good. Valve is open and communicative with the community. They have shown a pattern, in and outside of VR, of listening for the most part, giving support to devs on their own dime with no restrictions, R and D for the whole of VR on their own dime with no restrictions and making changes for the better. Confidently giving their headsets to the media with no NDA's so that we the buying public are informed and know what we are getting.

When I look at things so far and when I think of the future of VR and who's hands I would rather help support to craft it at the moment, an open platform or a closed one, the answer is easy for me with the options that we have so far. I want to support the platform that makes it easier for me to change my support in the future if need be. I do not hold myself to any company but if I wall myself in both with my investments and consequently pride like I did with xbox, it makes it so very much harder to switch to something else that I feel is doing it "right" if the company that I am currently giving my support to flubs up.

From now on I plan to detatch myself from brand loyalty and flow like water to support whomever I see fit and it doesn't make sense to be putting damns in my way.

 

[pj]

Facebook is clearly more invested in the hardware side of things than Valve are. Valve need the HTC Vive to establish the room scale feature set and to establish Steam VR as a platform, but beyond that, if something else comes along from another company and blows it out of the water, they won't really care at that point, so long as Steam VR is the leading VR platform and the hardware supports the kind of experiences they want to make. Neither is interested in fostering competition between the platforms though, imho. Both want their platform to be the dominant one and don't really care if the other succeeds or fails.

The software platform is the least interesting part of VR, that's why my post mentioned HMD competition. If someone does make a HMD that blows away rift and vive, where would you want your existing library of games to be? Steam or oculus?

I think valve's hardware agnosticism is the correct path and oculus' obsession with controlling the experience will be their downfall.

 

[Monger]

I'm pretty sure third party developers that received help from Oculus can also publish on other platforms and for other hardware if they want to. It's just the 1st party games that are unlikely to get support for other HMDs.

Not really. There are limited exclusivity titles, but they are still under exclusivity contracts.

Palmer

"These exclusive titles, in many ways, essentially are first party titles," he wrote. "They are funded by us, we have our own staff working on them, and they are optimized around our launch timeline and tech stack. The only difference is that we chose to work with third parties to make them successful instead of competing with them through our own first party teams."

 

[Durante]

I'm not asking you to change any of that. But I don't think it's established that the Vive is 'technologically superior'.

Its tracking is very clearly superior. I don't think even you would argue that.
We have come to somewhat of an agreement that the optics are more or less the same quality, with different tradeoffs.
Some less important factors alternatingly favor one or the other (eye relief adjustment vs weight, built-in headphones vs. easy custom headphone connectivity, ...).

There are differences. They are negligible according to people who have gone hands on with both headsets.

See, this is exactly what you would call "bias" in my posts. Some people who have gone hands on with both headsets say that the differences in FoV are negligible. Other people who have gone hands on with both headsets experienced the larger Vive FoV as more immersive.

And you didn't feel the need to wait for a better comparison than the original one before thinking the matter was decided.

As it turned out, the matter was decided. If anything, the more complex methodology shows an even larger advantage in optimal achievable FoV than I would have expected from the initial data.

I'll repeat what I said before, I think Oculus should support other SDKs on their store. I'll keep repeating it if you need me to.

Good, we agree on that.

For me the issue with UWPs isn't that you can or can't buy them on Steam, it's that they are overly restrictive and missing key features I get from regular software.

Right. I agree.

My issue with Oculus is that the terms of their EULA are overly restrictive.

I only ever see you talking about the *advantages* of the Vive. Ignoring that it does in fact have disadvantages.

There are some disadvantages to it (like the ~20% weight difference), but really, I just don't find those particularly exciting to talk about.

The reason topics like FoV were discussed in much detail some pages back is primarily because Oculus was so very secretive about them. New information is way more exciting than things we've known for a long time.

 

[elyetis]

I can more or less see where plagiarize is coming.

I'm not speaking about the sdk etc.. but when it comes to the headsets in general. Honestly it sometimes feel like reading consoles war posts, where only what's best on 'my side' matter.
I mean pretty much overnight SDE didn't matter anymore, only FOV and brightness.

I'm not saying the opposite should be true either, I mean I wouldn't want half the current FOV for the sake of zero SDE.
Maybe a little bit more SDE for a little bit more FOV, like it's currently the case between the Oculus/Vive, does make a better experience. I don't know, and that's why I know have ordered the 2 headsets, because it really felt like something which needed to be experienced given how subjective it probably is.

Same with the controler, maybe Oculus Touch, even with well placed cameras, will have far too many problem with occlusion compared to the Vive, that anyone who want 360° play should buy a Vive. But maybe it really won't be that much of a problem and the touch will have reasons to be prefered ( bouton layout or whatever ). But there too, it seems like many people already see it as something we already have the answer to.

 

[Durante]

I'm not speaking about the sdk etc.. but when it comes to the headsets in general. Honestly it sometimes feel like reading consoles war posts, where only what's best on 'my side' matter.
I mean pretty much overnight SDE didn't matter anymore, only FOV and brightness.

I can see where this impression would come from, and maybe it does apply to some people.

But I encourage anyone who believes that I change my arguments or beliefs based on which particular logo is on which particular piece of hardware to check my posts about VR over the past 3 years. SDE was never a primary concern for me.

Same with the controler, maybe Oculus Touch, even with well placed cameras, will have far too many problem with occlusion compared to the Vive, that anyone who want 360° play should buy a Vive. But maybe it really won't be that much of a problem and the touch will have reasons to be prefered ( bouton layout or whatever ). But there too, it seems like many people already see it as something we already have the answer to.

I don't think anyone really says that we have the answer for that, however, we can speculate. For example, we know from a Carmack quote that they had significant issues getting Touch tracking to work sufficiently well, and we have videos of people throwing around their Vive controllers at ridiculous speed while maintaining perfect tracking.

What we certainly do know is that the Vive controllers ship two days from now.

 

[Zalusithix]

Same with the controler, maybe Oculus Touch, even with well placed cameras, will have far too many problem with occlusion compared to the Vive, that anyone who want 360° play should buy a Vive. But maybe it really won't be that much of a problem and the touch will have reasons to be prefered ( bouton layout or whatever ). But there too, it seems like many people already see it as something we already have the answer to.

I think most simply view the answer as "Vive has them now" rather than an answer to what one is better. Touch might end up being superior, but that's something people will have to wait an unknown number of months to get their hands on for an unknown additional cost, and anybody developing for the Oculus side wont know whether users will have them or not. With the Vive, it's simple. You'll have them right away, they work, and any dev making experiences for the system knows you have them and can plan around them without fallbacks. These are non-negotiable points that have real consequences for both the current and future.

 

[mrklaw]

I'd happily buy vive now, oculus CV2 if touch is awesome (it does seem the more comfortable headset), or company 3's headset if someone comes in and blows them away.

All assuming I am not missing access to my games. That's one reason I'm likely to stick to the steam store for buying games, and any future headset purchasing decision will be based on continued access to those games

 

[elyetis]

I can see where this impression would come from, and maybe it does apply to some people.

But I encourage anyone who believes that I change my arguments or beliefs based on which particular logo is on which particular piece of hardware to check my posts about VR over the past 3 years. SDE was never a primary concern for me.

I really wasn't aiming someone in particular, I really don't take name. Maybe I'm wrong, and for all those people, SDE never really mattered; but it does feel like a general shift accured as soon as the FOV controversy appeared.

I don't think anyone really says that we have the answer for that, however, we can speculate. For example, we know from a Carmack quote that they had significant issues getting Touch tracking to work sufficiently well, and we have videos of people throwing around their Vive controllers at ridiculous speed while maintaining perfect tracking.

I'm all for speculating, discusing, etc.. again it's really about the fact that it feel like it's more often than not, presented as a fact. I mean the superior tracking is a fact, but how much of an impact it will make in game is far more.. grey ?

What we certainly do know is that the Vive controllers ship two days from now.

Most definitely, if someone doesn't want to wait ( even more so since we don't know how long he would have to wait, and if the wait will be worth it or not ) to play in VR with motion control and roomscale; there is no doubt that the Vive is the answer.

 

[plagiarize]

I really wasn't aiming someone in particular, I really don't take name. Maybe I'm wrong, and for all those people, SDE never really mattered; but it does feel like a general shift accured as soon as the FOV controversy appeared.
I'm all for speculating, discusing, etc.. again it's really about the fact that it feel like it's more often than not, presented as a fact. I mean the superior tracking is a fact, but how much of an impact it will make in game is far more.. grey ?
Most definitely, if someone doesn't want to wait ( even more so since we don't know how long he would have to wait, and if the wait will be worth it or not ) to play in VR with motion control and roomscale; there is no doubt that the Vive is the answer.

Agreed, and as I've said many times, buy a Vive if you want to experience all the types of games VR has to offer. As far as gambles go, $200 to get motion controllers now, should you be even somewhat interested in such things is a no brainer. We don't know how much Oculus will charge for Touch, and even if it is cheaper, there is clear value to playing those experiences 3 to 9 months earlier, presuming there are no delays or shipping issues (which is being kind).

But mainly, buy A headset now. And lets not crap on the others.

Durante, you're right that SDE has never been something you've complained about, so I can completely understand where you are coming from on the FOV discussion and thank you for pointing it out. What I find frustrating is that here I am with this headset that can do these amazing things (just played the Apollo 11 experience), and that Oculus have allowed there to be this void which is being filled with all this system wars esque crap.

I don't just want roomscale VR to succeed, so I'm glad that you have Oculus currently pushing the seating and standing experiences. Maybe they aren't doing that in the best way. I don't want room scale to fail either.

But last night I was playing Altspace VR and exploring a maze with a bunch of strangers. I have no idea what headsets they were using... and I didn't think to ask them. Because it didn't matter to the experience we were all having.

I'd happily buy vive now, oculus CV2 if touch is awesome (it does seem the more comfortable headset), or company 3's headset if someone comes in and blows them away.

All assuming I am not missing access to my games. That's one reason I'm likely to stick to the steam store for buying games, and any future headset purchasing decision will be based on continued access to those games

Thank you again for Apollo 11 VR. I'm going to start banging out my thoughts over in the Oculus launch thread.

 

[viveks86]

From now on I plan to detatch myself from brand loyalty and flow like water to support whomever I see fit and it doesn't make sense to be putting dams in my way.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

Look, here's another way of looking at this.

Both Oculus and Valve can agree on Oculus software being sold on Steam.

They both can't agree on Vive software being sold on Oculus Home.

I don't see how that makes one a sinner and one a saint.

Valve clearly have a vested interest in preventing sales on the Oculus store. Oculus clearly have an interest in Vive owners buying their software from them. Neither of these positions are held because of what is good for the consumer.

I can *buy* loads of games that *require* Steam from anywhere. But I still have to install Valve's storefront if I want to play them. This doesn't remotely bother me, but it makes the distinctions between what Oculus are doing and what Valve are doing pretty miniscule from my perspective. Clearly Valve wants to get their store on as many machines as possible and they do this via making content themselves that only works on steam, and by making it desirable for other developers to make content that only works on steam.

Letting those developers sell their keys anywhere... still has a benefit to Valve. There's nothing insidious about that, but it's clearly a business model.

Where did you pull this from -- that Valve wants to sell via Oculus Home? If this is what you're basing your arguments on, then I see why you're upset by this situation. If your source is ZeroInformation, let me remind you that he was wrong about a ton of things. He lampooned linknewtab, which led to people flaming him for weeks until, guess what, it was proven that linknewtab was absolutely right about the FoV and screen brightness.

All I'm hearing in this debate is conjecture. Whodunnit? Valve or Oculus. The problem is that, right now, there are enough cold, hard facts supporting "nice guy" Valve, whereas my CTRL+F continues to not find anything remotely solid in Oculus' favor.

It's always just conjecture, based purely on STEAM's business practices and ZeroInformation's overlay speculation.

So, here are just the facts, not conjecture or rumor:

1. Valve has gone on record that they do not care if you buy games from them or the Oculus store. Exclusivity is bad. They actually said these things! Oculus has said nothing sans vague comments alluding to Valve's business interests.
   
2. Oculus loves strict NDA's. Valve uses none. Those NDA's prevented devs from talking about the technical specs of CV1, as well as the exact nature of their exclusivity agreements.
   
3. According to comments from Palmer, Oculus is only making money on software sales, so of course, they stand the most to lose here, not Valve as I keep hearing in these arguments. Any lost sale is a problem for Oculus, whereas Valve isn't going to die overnight because a negligible amount of software is bought through another store.
   
4. SteamVR works with the Oculus Rift and Home. In effect, this rumored overlay requirement exists -- right in the Rift 1.3 SDK. And, Valve is OK with it. Rift users can effectively access both storefronts now, but the inverse is not true.
   
5. Oculus has store-exclusive builds, even for games that had generic VR support for ages. Yes, they've given developers the option to give STEAM keys after the fact, but they want to be the initial point of sale. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, mind you, but they're being much more aggressive about protecting sales than Valve.

Again, that's everything we know to be true now that the Rift is out. We didn't learn any of this through whispers and "insiders." That's the state of things as they exist, right now, clear as day from reading EULA's/TOS's and looking at the actions of both companies in the past week.

Oh, and one more thing: an overlay, if that rumor is true, doesn't suddenly mean Oculus will lose all their sales. They could still continue negotiating exclusives for their store, forcing Vive owners to have to buy Lucky's Tale, EVE, etc. from them. Origin, UbiSoft and now Microsoft with their XBONE games all do this already. They could also continue to make Oculus Home the fantastic experience that I've heard it is, enticing Vive owners to want to live in that space.

In other words, they could, ya know, compete, and let consumers decide.

 

[plagiarize]

Where did you pull this from -- that Valve wants to sell via Oculus Home? If this is what you're basing your arguments on, then I see why you're upset by this situation. If your source is ZeroInformation, let me remind you that he was wrong about a ton of things. He lampooned linknewtab, which led to people flaming him for weeks until, guess what, it was proven that linknewtab was absolutely right about the FoV and screen brightness.

All I'm hearing in this debate is conjecture. Whodunnit? Valve or Oculus. The problem is that, right now, there are enough cold, hard facts supporting "nice guy" Valve, whereas my CTRL+F continues to not find anything remotely solid in Oculus' favor.

It's always just conjecture, based purely on STEAM's business practices and ZeroInformation's overlay speculation.

So, here are just the facts, not conjecture or rumor:

1. Valve has gone on record that they do not care if you buy games from them or the Oculus store. Exclusivity is bad. They actually said these things! Oculus has said nothing sans vague comments alluding to Valve's business interests.
   
2. Oculus loves strict NDA's. Valve uses none. Those NDA's prevented devs from talking about the technical specs of CV1, as well as the exact nature of their exclusivity agreements.
   
3. According to comments from Palmer, Oculus is only making money on software sales, so of course, they stand the most to lose here, not Valve as I keep hearing in these arguments. Any lost sale is a problem for Oculus, whereas Valve isn't going to die overnight because a negligible amount of software is bought through another store.
   
4. SteamVR works with the Oculus Rift and Home. In effect, this rumored overlay requirement exists -- right in the Rift 1.3 SDK. And, Valve is OK with it. Rift users can effectively access both storefronts now, but the inverse is not true.
   
5. Oculus has store-exclusive builds, even for games that had generic VR support for ages. Yes, they've given developers the option to give STEAM keys after the fact, but they want to be the initial point of sale. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, mind you, but they're being much more aggressive about protecting sales than Valve.

Again, that's everything we know to be true now that the Rift is out. We didn't learn any of this through whispers and "insiders." That's the state of things as they exist, right now, clear as day from reading EULA's/TOS's and looking at the actions of both companies in the past week.

Oh, and one more thing: an overlay, if that rumor is true, doesn't suddenly mean Oculus will lose all their sales. They could still continue negotiating exclusives for their store, forcing Vive owners to have to buy Lucky's Tale, EVE, etc. from them. Origin, UbiSoft and now Microsoft with their XBONE games all do this already. They could also continue to make Oculus Home the fantastic experience that I've heard it is, enticing Vive owners to want to live in that space.

In other words, they could, ya know, compete, and let consumers decide.

If they both agreed, there would be Vive compatible content on Oculus home. So clearly they both don't agree. Does that say one doesn't agree and one does? If there is a boy and a girl, is it not true to say... they aren't both girls?

We don't know what the sticking point between the two companies is. We know both of them dodge questions about it. We know both of them have financial interests in the matter...

so why is it so distasteful for me to point out that there is likely blame to be assigned to both here and that neither are taking the position of the consumer for altruistic reasons?

That's literally all I'm saying. I have no information on *why* they haven't yet come to terms on this. Neither company will go on record about it. Which lends me to think that:

A: they are still trying to negotiate this, and it might yet happen.
and
B: that neither of them are solely in the wrong or solely in the right.

With what we know, how can anyone say one party is solely in the wrong. We literally don't know what either is asking of the other.

And please... Valve uses NDAs. Are they as bad? Maybe not. But again, lets get away from this Valve can do no ill thing.

 

[jack....]

Well, I spent a week with the CV1 and it's an awesome piece of hardware but what I've seen of the Vive really looks more appealing to me and Rift prices on eBay are out of control.

I just sold my Rift for enough to cover a Vive and my PSVR preorder. I have to wait until May for the Vive to ship, unfortunately, but another month or two isn't bad.

 

[KingSnake]

I just wonder until when this whole discussion about fact vs. ideal hypothetical will go? Touch? Rift 2? Rift 3? Rift 4k? the end of times? Seems like a never-ending story.

 

[mrklaw]

It's easy for valve to say they don't want exclusivity when they have by far the dominant storefront on PC. It would be a shrewd marketing message to say such a thing. Maybe they mean it, but they're still a highly profitable business and so the benefit of the doubt should be tempered

 

[plagiarize]

I just wonder until when this whole discussion about fact vs. ideal hypothetical will go? Touch? Rift 2? Rift 3? Rift 4k? the end of times? Seems like a never-ending story.

I'm really hoping that once the two headsets have feature parity that the wars will cool down. Just as Microsoft downplayed 1080p and Sony marketed the shit out of it until BOTH consoles could do it.

Once both can do room scale, then we can stop arguing about whether or not roomscale is the future and just let the game sales speak for themselves.

 

[UnrealEck]

what I've seen of the Vive really looks more appealing to me

Can you give some examples?

 

[Durante]

I'm really hoping that once the two headsets have feature parity that the wars will cool down. Just as Microsoft downplayed 1080p and Sony marketed the shit out of it until BOTH consoles could do it.

Once both can do room scale, then we can stop arguing about whether or not roomscale is the future and just let the game sales speak for themselves.

Actual, the fundamental discourse here seems to be about open (sorry, "less closed") versus closed APIs. That isn't going to go away unless Oculus decides to make it go away (e.g. by removing the offending parts of their EULA).

 

[KingSnake]

I'm really hoping that once the two headsets have feature parity that the wars will cool down. Just as Microsoft downplayed 1080p and Sony marketed the shit out of it until BOTH consoles could do it.

Once both can do room scale, then we can stop arguing about whether or not roomscale is the future and just let the game sales speak for themselves.

So Rift 2 hopefully. (but I agree with the comparison, Rift's roomscale feature is like Xbox One's 1080p)

 

[jack....]

Can you give some examples?

Room scale stuff, mostly.

Also the decreased halo effect.

 

[UnrealEck]

Room scale stuff, mostly.

Also the decreased halo effect.

Fair enough, room scale is more prevalent on Vive at launch.
Have you tried a Vive yourself?

 

[plagiarize]

Actual, the fundamental discourse here seems to be about open (sorry, "less closed") versus closed APIs. That isn't going to go away unless Oculus decides to make it go away (e.g. by removing the offending parts of their EULA).

That's *an* issue. And there are other ways that it'll go away. If developers stop using it, for example. Honest question, why do you think developers are supporting it currently?

So Rift 2 hopefully. (but I agree with the comparison, Rift's roomscale feature is like Xbox One's 1080p)

I was actually thinking more 360 vs PS3, but the analogy still works if you think PS4 vs Xbox One I suppose.

 

[Durante]

That's *an* issue. And there are other ways that it'll go away. If developers stop using it, for example. Honest question, why do you think developers are supporting it currently?

The Oculus SDK? I can imagine quite a few reasons:

• Many developers started out with Rift DK1/DK2, and therefore naturally with the Oculus SDK. (I mean, I used the SDK back in 2014 to create a demo)
• They are required to use the Oculus SDK to sell on the Oculus store, which could still make up a significant portion of the initial VR market.
• They might be working on a (partially) Oculus-funded game.
• They might be using some very specific SDK feature which isn't replicated in OpenVR (yet).

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Anyone knows if the New Retro Arcade works on one of the CV headsets?

 

[Vyse The Legend]

If they both agreed, there would be Vive compatible content on Oculus home. So clearly they both don't agree. Does that say one doesn't agree and one does? If there is a boy and a girl, is it not true to say... they are both not girls?

We don't know what the sticking point between the two companies is. We know both of them dodge questions about it. We know both of them have financial interests in the matter...

so why is it so distasteful for me to point out that there is likely blame to be assigned to both here and that neither are taking the position of the consumer for altruistic reasons?

That's literally all I'm saying. I have no information on *why* they haven't yet come to terms on this. Neither company will go on record about it. Which lends me to think that:

A: they are still trying to negotiate this, and it might yet happen.
and
B: that neither of them are solely in the wrong or solely in the right.

With what we know, how can anyone say one party is solely in the wrong. We literally don't know what either is asking of the other.

And please... Valve uses NDAs. Are they as bad? Maybe not. But again, lets get away from this Valve can do no ill thing.

There are no absolutes in this world. These are businesses, and of course, they want to better themselves. You'll find nowhere in my post where I say that Gabe is a saint, and that Valve can do no wrong.

I laid out a lengthy post with concrete information, because this "feels" and conjecture thing has gotten really tiring. The truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle, but the facts, as we know them right now, are what they are, and they don't look good for Oculus. They don't require feels or conjecture, and that was entirely my point.

Whether or not Valve is playing Chess, doesn't discount the fact that Oculus is playing Checkers. Unfortunately, you and I are the game pieces here, being tossed about and forced to choose a side/headset.

It's fucking dumb.

 

[jack....]

Fair enough, room scale is more prevalent on Vive at launch.
Have you tried a Vive yourself?

Nope.

I was really happy with the Rift and I probably would have stuck with it until the motion controllers came out at least, but the amount of money people are paying for these things right now is crazy and stuff like Budget Cuts looks so cool. I couldn't pass it up.

 

[plagiarize]

Whether or not Valve is playing Chess, doesn't discount the fact that Oculus is playing Checkers. Unfortunately, you and I are the game pieces here, being tossed about and forced to choose a side/headset.

It's fucking dumb.

That we can definitely agree on.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Another thing is that there is no reason to buy "multi-HMD" games from the Oculus store sadly.

The friendlist is bad (you cant even chat yet).
No refunds.
No cloud saves.
No community-features.
Can only install on C:\ now.
The storefront doesnt even have browsable categories now besides "experiences", games and apps.
No reviews.
No "cards".
No achievements.

I somehow doubt the exclusive games could even make Oculus Home the "default" VR software, if they dont offer, what the competitor offers. People might buy the exclusive games from that store then, but for multi-HMD-games, people will buy them on Steam.

 

[elyetis]

I just wonder until when this whole discussion about fact vs. ideal hypothetical will go? Touch? Rift 2? Rift 3? Rift 4k? the end of times? Seems like a never-ending story.

Er... hypotheses about Touch qualities and defaults can be replaced by facts once it's released and tested by people ? Same with the Rift 2, same with the Rift 3, the Vive 2, or the Vive 3.

 

[KingSnake]

Er... hypotheses about Touch qualities and defaults can be replaced by facts once it's released and tested by people ? Same with the Rift 2, same with the Rift 3, the Vive 2, or the Vive 3.

Exactly my point. Like the hypotheses about Rift superior optics will be validated once Rift will launch.

Spoiler

Just a little delivery joke while waiting for my shipping email

 

[Felix Lighter]

I look forward to the point when the majority of us have our headsets.

 

[Brannon]

"Only install on C:"

Oculus can suck my D: I mean, what the hell. No, oculus. No.

 

[elyetis]

Exactly my point. Like the hypotheses about Rift superior optics will be validated once Rift will launch.

? The CV1 getting in the hands of people once out of NDA allowed us to know that the FoV with inferior to the Vive, while confirming that it has less SDE. Seems like a pretty grey picture, where people can then choose ( or test and see for themselve, if they can ) what matter the most to them.

The same will happen with the Touch controller, maybe the result will validate the hypothese that it will have an incredibly small tracking volume where occlusion isn't a huge problem, that the buttons layout isn't as good as the Vive because the track pad is a far better choice, etc.. ).
Or the result could be just as "grey" as it for the optics/screens.
Saying that one or the other is already a fact would be disingenuous.

 

[Felix Lighter]

"Only install on C:"

Oculus can suck my D: I mean, what the hell. No, oculus. No.

Yes an incredible stupid oversight. It is being fixed and supposedly soon but I have no idea how that slipped by them. I imagine a developer who planned to go back and surface the setting in the UI, slapping his forehead when the complaints came back to them.

 

[plagiarize]

Yes an incredible stupid oversight. It is being fixed and supposedly soon but I have no idea how that slipped by them. I imagine a developer who planned to go back and surface the setting in the UI, slapping his forehead when the complaints came back to them.

I doubt it 'slipped by them'. I'm sure it's just something that didn't get done in time, like a lot of other clearly missing features.

 

[Riptwo]

I just finished watching the first episode of Foo by Will from tested.com, and it was really intriguing! When I first read that it was a VR talkshow, I wasn't sure that it was going to be my scene. Once the scene shifted from the studio to the tower from Firewatch, however, I was completely sold.

It was wild to see a setting from a game that I'd already played in VR, and despite Firewatch's cartoonish aesthetic, it felt like a real place. I was already impressed by the small details around the tower when I played the game on PS4, but it was so wild to be able to pick objects up and check them out. And even though some of the objects didn't translate well (i.e. they were missing textures on sides that weren't normally meant to be scene), it made it even more fascinating to see some of the compromises that go into developing game environments.

I didn't expect for that to be as engaging as it was, and I'm excited to see what environments will be available in future episodes!