Just from an outsider's perspective: The entire Oculus acquisition has been one fumble after another, I dare call it a debacle. They traded their community trust online to participate and get the resources of a bigger company (probably due to competitive pressure). The bigger company was facebook, which doesn't evoke a large amount of community trust, so there was considerable splintering in the community rallying behind what was seen as the future champ of VR.
This was the same early adopter community that wanted to spend the money, buy the rigs, develop for the platform, and further VR in general.
Now when I see old school innovators join up, it just feels like they've sold out by association.
I don't know what's going to save its image? Maybe a killer app?
I feel this view point assumes most people are Reddit users. Reddit gave them a ton of hate for being purchased by FB, and most people on Reddit hate FB, but the statistics and how much their units are sold tells us they're not having a problem reaching customers.
Most companies gave really favorable reviews of touch, and gear vr has sold really well. I think the image problem is mostly just vocal Reddit users.
Are they looking to just push units? If so that strategy might work for a while. But many of us are under the impression they are looking to build an ecosystem, and the hardware is just a replaceable component to that (with plenty of competition).
I feel like the concerns were more around what that ecosystem was going to be like, than the viability and or cool factor of the hardware itself. (i.e. just because I was an early adopter of a dk2 does not mean I am on board with Oculus for the long run).
> I feel this view point assumes most people are Reddit users. Reddit gave them a ton of hate for being purchased by FB, and most people on Reddit hate FB, but the statistics and how much their units are sold tells us they're not having a problem reaching customers.
> Most companies gave really favorable reviews of touch, and gear vr has sold really well. I think the image problem is mostly just vocal Reddit users.
Something like 80% of internet users use Facebook. Anyone that thinks that Facebook integration is going to bother the average person (or care that Facebook just owns the company) is out of touch.
Given that Facebook boasts 1.8 billion monthly active users users, and there are about 3.5 billion Internet users, it seems broadly plausible that 80% of people on the Internet have used Facebook — but 80% definitely aren't regular users.
I use Facebook and owned a DK1 and DK2, but did not get the CV1 or continue to the use my DK2 because of the Facebook integration.
I trust Facebook with the information I explicitly share with it, i.e., posting photos or comments on Facebook. I do not trust Facebook to have unfettered access to a microphone, camera, and activity just to be able to play a game. The Facebook integration was, well, integral, and not just an opt-in for enhancing social aspects. You can't use the headset to play local content without phoning home (short of using old drivers/OpenVR or something).
Of course maybe this still places me in a minority of users because I have the same reaction when a mobile app requests every permission possible, which seems to be the case with all apps now.
> I use Facebook and owned a DK1 and DK2, but did not get the CV1 or continue to the use my DK2 because of the Facebook integration.
Fair enough, I care about privacy as well but I'm just pointing out you need to acknowledge most people aren't bothered by this.
> I do not trust Facebook to have unfettered access to a microphone, camera, and activity just to be able to play a game.
I'm curious: do you have Whatsapp or the Facebook app installed on your phone? Facebook could spy on you via this or Oculus but if they were found out it would be seriously damaging to the company.
Just an FYI to anyone who didn't know this, the facebook app records audio in the background. It then targets ads to your conversations. Use the browser version if you want some semblance of privacy.
I own a CV1 and worry about the same things, actually. I unplug my cameras & rift when not in use, otherwise I'd literally have cameras pointing at my living room.
Many many people don't give a crap though, I have friends with Alexas and Xbox kinects in their living room. Kinect cameras can actually see you much more clearly[1] than the obfuscated Oculus ones which mainly see IR.
[1] some games have video replay on kinect, clear visualization of faces, etc
>I don't know what's going to save its image? Maybe a killer app?
For me they'd save a lot of face if they just opened up their APIs/store to other headsets. They tried to pin down the PC VR HMD market and failed due to Valve/HTC. But they're still trying to become the Steam of VR despite Steam doing the same and having the distinct advantage of already being the Steam of everything else. But there's definitely room for other storefronts out there like GOG and EA's Origin so I don't begrudge them wanting to take that 30% for themselves but let me use whatever HMD I want.
I can't agree more. The whole Oculus platform is so intrusive, it really feels like they care 100% about ways to extract value from their IP and 0% about delivering something users want.
My major gripe with them too, they aren't competing on technology but rather marketing and exclusivity arrangements. So glad they aren't the only ones driving the space forward, otherwise it's IE6 all over again.
Are they actively blocking the other HMD's or just not supporting them with drivers, etc? I know they locked it down at one point with DRM, but quickly backtracked.
Revive is a free option, that works with the Oculus Store and the Vive but that's obviously not as nice as native support from Oculus.
Honestly I'd like to see VR headsets be treated more like PC monitors or video cards than like game consoles. A display with some tracking sensors should have to come with a walled garden. I feel this would encourage a lot more VR game development as well as a lot faster release cycle on new hardware, as well as a better range of hardware options, just like how you can buy a cheapo monitor or video card and live with lower resolution/framerates, or you can splurge a couple grand and get a really nice one. Games don't really care which end of that spectrum you go, they have settings to accommodate various resolutions and graphical horsepower.
They're probably sitting on this until touch successfully shipped. This typically happens when something goes wrong though and so far Oculus seems to have sold pretty well from what we can glean. No one expected it to sell millions of units, yet. Perhaps there is a daily usage rate of devices they find troubling.
Then again, it could just be Facebook taking more control. Iribe is staying at the company and from the article,
> he's vacating the CEO seat and moving within the company to lead its PC VR group
So perhaps the statements are sincere and he's just staying focused on the PC division, which is all Oculus was initially.
From informal conversations I've had in the past with both people from Valve and PSVR it seems like PSVR and Vive numbers are closer to projections. I think Vive stole a lot of potential high end buyers from Oculus, not launching with Touch was a mistake for them. I also believe this market is a lot more price sensitive than Oculus thought it would be, The Rift has currently sold 200K units more than the DK2 with a much bigger marketing push, more high quality content and a better product, but 2x (or 3x if you include Touch) price point. I wonder if they should have made a "Super DK2". Lower quality headset hardware but Rift quality tracking and touch support at a lower price.
Anecdotally, many people believe VR is a niche market that is comparable to 3D TVs and doesn't add much, but I've also met people that would buy a highend VR headset (quality matters also) if the price was right and the setup was easy. A "cheap" ($250-$400) easy to use all-in-one unit with inside out tracking, tracked controllers and a good library of games, software and content could be the tipping point for the VR market.
I've had multiple rift owners tell me to get a vive because 'it does room scale'. Their website still doesn't mention anything about the touch enabling better tracking and room scale experiences! How could they screw up marketing this bad?
To be honest I'm still not even sure if I'm wrong about it supporting room scale, I've seen articles mention it but their website gives me doubts.
As I understand it, Oculus Touch is intended for two front-facing trackers (it comes with a second tracker to go with the Rift tracker). And the tracking seems pretty good while you're facing them. However, the three-tracker and diagonal-tracker setup is experimental, and the diagonal-tracker setup (Vive does the diagonal-tracker setup with its "lighthouses" to enable room-scale) is necessary if you're going to have games that encourage you to turn around or otherwise occlude the headset and the Touch devices with your body.
That's funny as I've seen people say Rift room scale is okay if you set up the cameras to be opposing (as instructions say). That said, if you buy an extra camera and get three it's mean to be VERY good room scale. Of course that's another 80 bucks, and officially above the Vive's price!
I think Oculus doesn't want to dillute it's marketing and reach the largest core group, so front facing standing. Many people don't have 5 by 7 feet free. We're currently at the stage of enthusiasts though, which have more money and space than typical users, and will move shit to make space (I sure did), which could definitely be a mistake...
The answer is complex which is why the marketing is so muddled. These guides cover "experimental" 2 and 3 sensor 360 degree tracking (https://support.oculus.com/help/oculus/199906947113632/?help...). You can buy a 3rd sensor, in additional to the sensors that came with Rift and Touch on the Oculus store for $80. The feature is considered experimental because the tracking setup UI isn't fully finished IIRC.
I have both a Vive and a Rift+Touch and to be honest the Vive handles tracking much better than Touch. I think Oculus is correct to classify room-scale as experimental with Touch.
I think that Oculus is avoiding marketing room-scale because Touch legitimately does not do it very well compared to the Vive:
* It almost certainly requires a third camera, which adds another $79 to the cost.
* Even with the third camera, the controllers lose tracking fairly easily if they're oriented away from the cameras (e.g., orient them towards your torso, but with nothing blocking the line of sight to the cameras).
* Even with the third camera, you end up with a smaller tracking volume than with the Vive.
* Lots of Touch owners are reporting serious tracking issues by just setting up two sensors in opposing corners. Others say it works fairly well. Your results will most likely be random.
* The Rift cable is barely long enough to work well if you're actually walking around your space rather than just standing still.
* In the same vein, Oculus does not sell or endorse any extension cables for the Rift HMD. I've seen folks try out a lot of them with mixed success.
* The sensors have to be plugged straight into your PC, which with three cameras uses up a lot of USB ports.
* Even with the third camera, you'll only get one extension cable from Oculus, so the two existing sensors will still be pretty tethered to your PC.
* Even with the extension cable, it's not easy setting up the cameras in optimal locations throughout the room.
* Oculus does not supply any mounting brackets or sell any brackets on their website for mounting against the wall.
* The Rift and Touch do not come with any linking box, nor does Oculus sell one separately.
---
With all that said, Touch is a fantastic product and deserves the glowing reviews it's getting. It's just not designed for room-scale. It's workable, but not ideal.
Totally agree. I had a Rift set up in the office (seated) with Touch (very impressed) and brought it home at the weekend to try roomscale (with a third camera) and was utterly frustrated by the glitchy tracking. With the Vive (in the same room) I've never experienced a single glitch in nearly 60hrs of play. I hated running all the cables back to the PC as well. It's worth mentioning as well that the sensor USB ports all have to be USB3 as well. That means it takes up 4xUSB3 ports for roomscale!
AFAIK neither company mentions this in their supported PC specs, though the Rift compatability tool will warn you if you have incompatable USB ports.
I would really have liked to have known this going into my Vive purchase - I've owned it for 2 weeks and have been able to use the device twice in that time.
You're perhaps not misquoting Iribe but I think your statement is a bit misleading. He said 1 million units for the lifetime of CV1, and they plan to keep the CV1 around for at least a couple more years[0]. We may see more people buy Rifts as PC needed to run them get cheaper.
Also, PSVR has sold many units, but is 2 million short of their projection[1], which is pretty abysmal. I wanted them to succeed, like every other VR enthusiast since they're the lowest more reasonable entry point as millions of people have PS4's, but that just doesn't seem to be the case... :(
[0] People have pried for when CV2 might be expected and Oculus usually say "Lifetime of Rift's will be between smartphones and gaming consoles" Phones refresh every year, consoles every 8-ish, so something like 3?
[1] over the life of the first consumer version of the Oculus Rift."
You're right about the lifetime numbers rather than first year numbers. It's still likely they will hit 1 million units before Rift is end of lifed. Sales are definitely slower than Vive, but its possible they will catch up now that Touch is out.
As for PSVR, I've seen reports that they are actually supply constrained (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/14/sony-expect-playstation-vr-sh...) and the smaller market size isn't due to lack of demand. It might also be because there still isn't much content available for PSVR and Sony is waiting for a larger lineup and for more PS4 Pro unit sales.
I bought a DK2 to play with it and get a "sample" experience. I'd buy in a second if there were a killer app, whether that be some sort of communication platform or big game. Thus far it strikes me as a gaming peripheral first and foremost, with the problem that nobody will spend big money to develop a big game for it because the platform isn't big enough. Think the Playstation Move controller - lots of promise for the technology but not enough sell through to get people to use it for much other than a gimmick to an existing game.
This is why I wish they would stop focusing on games. Looking at the Vive and Rift websites the #1 thing they're looking to sell people with is games. Why not utilities? Why not COMMUNITIES?
I wish they would make a big push for something that could expand our ability to meet with other people virtually. Why not a MUCK where you can speak with and interact with other people in a virtual space? It seems like there is so much more potential for self expression and interaction than people are building right now. AltspaceVR and Playstation Home were examples of this, but really doesn't bring a whole lot to the table that you couldn't get in any other MMO game.
If someone is making something like this and you need a backend or web developer, drop me a line :)
I'd love to work on a AR/VR "social network" (for lack of a better term). Facebook's SocialVR experiments are probably the closest to an actual attempt at doing something like this. I think AltspaceVR, Linden, and other smaller players building Metaverse style virtual worlds are somewhat misguided because they focus on fantasy over reality, which I think has a niche but doesn't appeal to a more mainstream audience.
One of the most exciting VR apps is Google Earth VR, which highlights that the "killer app" for VR will have telepresence at its core.
The demo at the bottom of the page is a virtual meeting room. It is... unfortunately broken right now and I've been too busy supporting VR clients to fix it yet, but perhaps you can see the idea there.
> I wonder if they should have made a "Super DK2". Lower quality headset hardware but Rift quality tracking and touch support at a lower price.
As the owner of a DK2, I can say that would have been a much wiser strategy. They CV1 costs roughly twice as much as the DK2 but the increase in cost is mainly attributed to adding features rather than improvements to the weaknesses of the DK2.
The biggest drawback to the DK2 was its low display resolution and having tried the CV1 and Vive, the bump to 2160x1200 made little improvement. The switch to a standard RGD pixel layout from the DK2's pentile display made more of a difference than the resolution itself. The increase in refresh rate also added little benefit over the 75hz of the DK2 in my experience.
I was massively disappointed by the news that the CV1 was forgoing the leap to 4K but I was still willing to buy in to the superior pixel layout and positional audio if the price difference mirrored the tiny improvement in the overall experience. I was expecting a $400 headset and was floored by the $600 price point.
Now I'm just clinging to my DK2 and hoping Oculus doesn't completely kill support for it while I wait for another challenger to recognize this huge gap in the market. I would have already bought thr OSVR HDK2 if it broke the HDMI spec and allowed for a true 75hz+ refresh rate.
"The biggest drawback to the DK2 was its low display resolution"
I disagree. The biggest drawback of the DK2 and every other VR headset on the market is that the headset itself is big, bulky, and uncomfortable.
VR manufacturers really need to get the headsets down to around the size and comfort of regular glasses to prevent them from being tossed in the closet with the rollerblades and other novely items which are too annoying to use on a regular basis.
Once the novelty wears off, people will stop using it if it's not comfortable and convenient.
I agree. I also think that the mass appeal of VR is much lower than most tech enthusiasts believe. It's a novelty that everyone probably wants to try once just to see what it's like, but I don't think many people really want to play games or regularly immerse in experiences that way. It decreases your environmental awareness far too much imo, and I think that long-term, many people will believe it's creepy to be that sucked into a device, and walking around with a huge block attached to your head.
I've heard some people say that AR is really where VR can make mass-market appeal and I'd certainly agree that prospects for something like an environmental HUD a la Glass are much better than an "immersive" experience that leaves you blind to the real-world.
I agree, this is certainly not a demand driven product, I've played around with VR since the 90's and for some use cases it is unimaginably useful, yet for daily consumer entertainment the experience is not physically comfortable enough, interactive TV was not popular, people generally fill their time with lay back viewing, even when given more 'exciting' alternatives. Look at videogames, despite the potential we are still mostly stuck in realistic looking scenarios that permit us to play out violent fantasies, their are scant few titles that explore the deeper side of human experience, the indie scene is much richer in this regard, there is so much growing up to do in the 2d medium I am sceptical that adding a dimension will resolve these entrenched issues.
Yeah, they focused on comfort, when the primary market was early adopter gamers who don't really care about that. They could've been earlier to market and sold better if they had focused on raw performance and features.
Clean up the fit and finish and minimize VR sickness for the mass market 2.0 product. Early adopter products are about keeping people engaged with content and unique features.
The fundamental problem with both the Vive and Rift is resolution. If resolution was there, it would be an entirely different experience because you could work inside the Rift.
Until this is fixed, it's just a niche.
Still ~$600 people might be tempted to opt for VR (Oculus/Vive). But lot of people miss the fact that the cost is in the range of ~$2000 when combined with VR unit + PC hardware you would need to run your VR. Given this PSVR becomes more interesting given that more or less there is a huge base of the PS4 installations and VR headset will seem like upgrade.
Just a wild guess, but it's possible that since Zuckerberg has a keen interest in VR that he's basically taking all of the fun vision / strategy parts of being the Oculus CEO and leaving Iribe with the slog.
I think you may be correct but got there the wrong way. From the lateral movement I think Iribe wanted to stay product focused instead of business focused and moved laterally within Facebook to do that. Whether it was from Zuckerberg or just the normal evolution curve of a startup CEO from productization to monetization can be debated - but the move to stay within Facebook seems to indicate it wasn't Zuckerberg's fingers (or handcuffs).
I'm rather surprised that amongst the speculation in the comments, no one is really considering that maybe Iribe's comments are true. Maybe he really did miss being more involved in the product and engineering part of the job.
The company has grown up very quickly, and I have to imagine at this point as CEO, he was spending most of his time in high level business talks and not doing what he loves and what he's best at.
How do you get to $2 billion? All of Oculus was purchased for $2 billion. Facebook's stock has roughly doubled since the acquisition. Iribe didn't own 50% of the company. Neither Bloomberg nor Forbes list him as a billionaire. Given their access & skill at measuring such well-known wealth, it's overwhelmingly likely they'd have those numbers pegged.
They specifically mention his focus on PC and his replacement was head of mobile before.
The obvious explanation to me is that the company has decided to focus on mobile, since that's the mass market play. That would've required Iribe to devote a large portion of his time to mobile. Maybe he just wasn't the right person for that job.
The first job I had after graduating from school was at Scaleform, which was Brendan's first company. I certainly wouldn't say I got to know him all that well or anything, but he definitely was into the code and the product. I could see him missing being more involved in the product and engineering.
But the bad image that they got for this still persists among many.
---
Another thing that Oculus did (probably because of pressure from Facebook, their parent company) is inserting dubious terms into their Terms of Service:
This should be a lesson: acts like this are poisonous. Nobody I know would even consider buying an oculus at this point because it seems like the ENTIRE VR community has turned against them.
It means that when I go online to do research on what to buy, I'm not going to find anybody praising the oculus.
You factor in the good faith of the company and past knowledge.
Look at Microsoft and the Kinect. After abandoning the hardware, people just stopped doing projects with Kinect, there was even a 3D scanner based off of it (which was cheaper than commercial model)
Don't remind me. I got the he Xbox one on "sale" last Black Friday. Really ticked off that they sold hw on sale just before the end. I say the end because I see almost no games supporting it these days.
The entire VR community is not against them. Certainly some are. They have the best VR now (modulo large room scale experiences), which has helped them lately.
I haven't used any VR besides my Oculus DK1, but I've recently heard that Vive is hands-down the best. Haven't heard anyone suggest that Oculus is competitive. I don't follow the VR community very closely. Would you say this sentiment is widely held?
http://newatlas.com/oculus-rift-review-touch/46711/ - "So Oculus Touch is a big ergonomic advantage for the Rift, and the additions of 360 tracking, room-scale and Guardian are effective as catch-up moves. But it's content that seals the deal for the Oculus Rift as our pick for best VR headset."
> "The optional dual-sensor, 360° setup works well for these games also, just with a smaller tracked area. Officially Oculus doesn't yet support 360° and room-scale configurations beyond "experimental support," but we recommend spending the extra $79 on that third sensor for the full experience."
From what I've heard it doesn't really work that well, even with a third camera, with intermittant tracking issues, and with much less space than the Vive.
I don't think it's that binary. The quotes are misleading because no one actually tested room-scale VR with the Rift except for Tom's and, of those that did, they tested it with the 3 camera setup that's not the standard config for it.
I would say that Oculus taking 6 months to catch up to Vive, to only gain parity, to not significantly leap frog, and then only assuming you stand just so, puts them behind in the overall race. They've not demonstrated anything to show they have upped their R&D cadence. I expect we will have a Vive refresh in another 6 months and the Rift will once again be behind.
I own both the Vive and the Rift and I have no idea where these reviewers are coming up with this. The Rift absolutely needs to have the 3 camera setup in order to work well and, even then, it's still not as good as a 2 lighthouse Vive setup. On top of that, the timed exclusives are annoying to me because I can't compare the 2 systems against each other to really determine which provides the better VR experience.
I might be in the minority, but the Valve Lab is still my favorite VR experience and Arizona Sunshine is quickly running up there for me. I don't like the locomotion AS uses, but the game is as close to the real-deal for VR as I've experienced so far.
I agree Valve Lab is my favorite experience, but it's available natively on Oculus Rift as well through SteamVR. And I have no issues with the 2-camera setup for a medium-sized play area. At room-scale, Oculus already recommends 3 and is not trying to claim that 2 camera setup is ideal.
I don't own a Vive but I've spent a good amount of time using my friend's and the display of the Rift is superior (and even he agrees). The Vive used to be a better overall package because of wands, but Touch is better (and battery life is FANTASTIC).
While I agree that the Oculus display is better, the pick up and go experience of the Rift is still better to me. Setting up the 3 cameras on the Rift and just getting everything to work well was a pain the butt. The Vive walked me through setting up the base stations and tracking the room and it was kind of fun to do it so it breezed by.
Touch is the best part of the Rift, one hundred percent (the controllers are better than the Vive ones for sure)--but in practice I found that dealing with its cameras was a bear to the point that, while both the demo units I set up have gone back, I'm probably buying a Vive when I get into VR work. The Rift requires some long USB runs unless you've got an office/game room with a lot of space to burn, whereas you can be a lot more flexible with spacing with the Vive because the lighthouses are passive and the brains of the device are on the headset and the controllers. I have a studio space that is built on inadvisably long USB runs, but that's with gear that seems a lot friendlier to it; the third camera for the Rift was a real problem in terms of USB spacing and it wasn't the sort of thing I'd want to leave set up in any room I'd have any other people in.
I don't personally agree that the Rift display is superior, but I think that's a reasonable-people-can-differ thing.
You may even see the stray oculus in the field of wild vive games.
I dont think there's a significant technical difference at this point, honestly, but the vive has won the hearts of the developer community, hands down.
Why does this seem to be the completely opposite reaction to what I see on Reddit? Over there, everyone seems to think that Oculus' funding of VR titles means that Oculus has won the hearts of the dev community. I don't really see that myself, but it seems like it's constantly repeated over there.
I have some dark thoughts about exactly who's still haunting Reddit these days, but that aside--how many of the people repeating that are developers?
Every developer I know personally who's either developing or considering developing VR titles--sample size not large, but north of ten or so?--is considering, in order, PS VR, Vive, Rift. (PS VR is difficult unless you're an established developer, obviously.)
I have to imagine Sony is over inflating their sales numbers somehow, because I don't know anyone with the Sony system, and I'm one of the organizers of our local VR meetup, so I would think that would get me in front of more VR consumers than average. In the past, I know Sony has counted console units that have left their warehouses as "sales", i.e. even the ones still sitting on retail shelves, having yet to be sold to a user.
The only Sony system I've even seen out in the wild was at one of those video game bars that had it set up in a motion room with the Wii U and DDR where all the games were not seated. It was down for almost 50% of the time and, at least on the TV that was mirroring the view, there was stuttering every 2 or 3 seconds that someone was playing. I never got a chance to use it myself, so it might be awesome, but my initial cursory experience with it was not positive. I also do not know anyone that owns it personally and I am largely involved in my local VR community.
The social screen on PS VR is untethered from the headset display, so it's not really reflective of the performance of the headset itself. Also bear in mind that the baseline PS4 can barely hit 90FPS normally when it isn't rendering very much--this is why a lot of the early PS VR games are so visually simple. I think the PS VR stuff will heat up when more PS4 Pros hit the market.
I've spent significant time with both systems. Without a doubt, the Rift is the inferior system.
The Rift is more comfortable to wear, but it comes at the cost of reduced Field of View. The Vive can really be strapped onto the face hard, giving a view that almost verges on providing peripheral vision. The Rift feels like looking through binoculars in comparison.
The Touch controllers are much lighter and better balanced that the Vive wands. Personally, I found the grip gestures expected for the Touch to be very painful, but that will vary by person. I do think they are too clever by half. I got a better sense of "I'm holding a gun" out of gun-games on the Vive than on Touch. I also found the ability to aim at and hit targets easier on the Vive. Ultimately, I think the argument on which controller is better is missing the greater point though, as neither is an ideal design. A hand-tracking system would be much better (and no, not the Leap Motion, that thing is garbage, yes, even after the Orion update). Though Vive-centric games have always had both motion controllers and room-scale by default, whereas the Rift market is now fragmented between gamepads and Touch, and seated versus standing. Also, Touch is only just now out, whereas Vive has had developers working on content for over half a year. Indeed, Valve is already working on a new form factor for the controller.
The two camera setup for the Rift is absolutely, hands-down awful. In a room dedicated to VR setup, I constantly lost tracking when turned to the left or right. The Vive's Lighthouse system is designed to be much, much more scalable. I've never had such pervasive problems maintaining tracking with the Vive.
Yes, you're supposed to have three cameras for room-scale on the Rift. To me, that's another point against the Rift. It's a very complex system that is prone to failure. I can get the Vive to track a space about 20ft by 20ft on stock hardware, in default configuration, with no special finagling, just calibrate and go. I have to spend more money on an extra camera with the Rift, extra PCIe cards for all these USB3 cameras, and it's hit or miss whether or not I can get 10ft by 10ft working.
The Rift's camera based system is limited by how high of a resolution they can pack into the camera, how sensitive they are to tiny IR LEDs across a room, and how many spare cycles they have to run the image processing algorithm on all those camera feeds. In comparison, the Vive's Lighthouse system is limited by how bright they can make the sync pulse, which basically amounts to an IR flash bulb.
In general, I think this is indicative of a much larger problem in VR, consumer reactions, and journalistic reporting. These are all amazing pieces of technology. If you've never seen any VR system after 2015, then you're not prepared for the experience these things provide. It's really easy to get lost in the wow-factor and fail to evaluate the system as a whole. E.g. the Rift headset is more comfortable, but is comfort an important metric compared to FOV? Is it enough that the Touch controllers are theoretically "more ergonomic" than the Vive wands, or is application design built around the controller important, too? Or the MS Hololens: wave-guide displays and inside out tracking are craaaaazy! But they are also kind of janky, the FOV is unusably narrow, and Windows Holographic has terrible UI affordances.
When I stop losing the forest for the trees and focus on a unified experience, the only system I have time for in my personal life right now is the Vive. We support "everything" in the projects we build, but if I'm just trying to relax and enjoy myself, I know the Rift and Gear VR and Hololens and Daydream are all staying on the shelf.
FWIW, I upvoted this, but it's also the best post I've ever seen on HN about the current state of VR tech. I'm glad it's here, and I wish I'd seen it before I replied to 'TwoBit's combative initial post in "VR Resources" so I could've just linked yours.
I'm sorry I missed your reply, because I think there is a conversation to be had here.
Frankly, I'm just about burnt out on everything about VR that is not actually experiencing VR apps. Other VR developers and the tech press talking about VR and consumers who haven't tried VR since 1995 and consumers who are coming to VR from gaming are just driving me towards disconnecting from it all, to work in peace, but that's not exactly productive.
I have to go, there is a baby in the other room who I can hear is grunting out a massive turd. Please find my email in my profile. I think there is something more to discuss here RE: The Myth of The Best and on pragmatism.
How poisonous is it really though? Not a rhetorical question.
The people who pay attention to this type of thing are VR enthusiasts, who are a minority compared to the larger pool Facebook is aiming for.
An interesting example would be Call of Duty: Infinity Warfare. Its trailer is one of the most downvoted videos on YouTube. As far as I understand, hardcore fans hated it and somehow managed to get downvoting the trailer to be some kind of viral thing (Otherwise, how did it get to those numbers? Nothing about the trailer per-se was that bad. There's even Jon Snow in it).
I thought that this would have no effect on the game's success, since I don't think average consumers are particularly interested in the opinions of hardcore gaming snobs.
However, the game has since been released and--as far as I know--bombed. Of course, that could also be due to the game being not that good.
There's no doubt that "influencers" are important in driving sales, but I'm skeptical whether they can play a similar role in preventing sales--especially if average consumers see value in the underlying product.
I've had the same thoughts for the last decade or so, and have swayed between both sides. Anything from iPhone adoption, to which social networks will prevail, to which competing technology will win. I've probably been more wrong than not, so the question why is increasingly interesting.
One related theory I can't find any wikipedia information on stems from an old TED talk from 2010:
Even if we traditionally consider ourselves (I've always been a "nerd"/"core"/"early adopter"/whatever) on the sidelines, when our industry and interests have taken center stage I think we have had a greater influence than we care to admit, or even want.
Some people want to be first at something, but many people don't, either for lack of anyone else to use said thing with, or lack of support, or high cost of entry, or unproven quality, etc.
I hate to get political, but I think it's increasingly clear that movements can begin with something as simple as a few memes from someones computer.
But it's of course hard to tell if "our" audience is the right one at all times (eg Google Glass, Google+), when comparing to Facebook (select few colleges) and Snapchat spectacles ("celebrity" millenials).
Oculus was brand new, and as one of their first acts they pissed off most of the people who had supported them, and the VR community in general.
With a perfectly good alternative (that is in some ways better), why would any enthusiast choose Oculus at this point?
And non-enthusiasts aren't buying the systems because they're too expensive and there are too few games. They effectively handed their entire market to another company for the next few years.
> The people who pay attention to this type of thing are VR enthusiasts, who are a minority compared to the larger pool Facebook is aiming for.
> [...]
> There's no doubt that "influencers" are important in driving sales, but I'm skeptical whether they can play a similar role in preventing sales--especially if average consumers see value in the underlying product.
The problem is: The necessary system requirements for an Oculus Rift (CPU, GPU (in particular), USB ports) are rather high. The average potential consumer you mention might see value in the Oculus Rift - but will probably not be enthusiastic enough to be willing to additionally buy a high-end PC etc. So the large pool that you believe Facebook is aiming for will contain many more hardcore enthusiasts and much less "average consumers" than you think.
>An interesting example would be Call of Duty: Infinity Warfare.
The differences between the market of people buying console-focused first-person shooters and the one for virtual reality headset systems make this comparison not really work.
Call of Duty was originally a much-beloved FPS series during a time when the genre was dominated by multiplayer games with high skill ceilings and "twitch" or reflex-based mechanics. They catered to the market available to them at the time, which was enthusiast gamers with the hardware required to run 3D video games (and to a lesser extend internet access that could play them online.) Consoles had existed for a while, but they weren't always in the position they are now. CoD 2 was released in late 2005, the Xbox 360 was released right around the same time, and the PS3 wouldn't come out until the next year. Internet multiplayer has been a reality on the PC since the 90's but Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network didn't even exist until the early 2000's. Halo: Combat Evolved on the original Xbox famously didn't support internet multiplayer, but its PC version did.
By this point it's obvious that the numbers in gaming are shifting. The relatively low sticker price of a gaming console means you don't have to work with the segment of the population who have enthusiast-grade computers. Pretty much anyone can afford to buy an Xbox 360. Crucially, the expense of console gaming isn't frontloaded. The most expensive part of being in the PC gaming segment was (and still is) either buying a bunch of components and assembling yourself, or spending even more for a prebuilt. Assembling computer parts is actually not that hard, but not assembling computer parts is even easier, and you can walk out of any department store with a home console for a few hundred dollars. You'll spend more than that over time from subscriptions, peripherals, more expensive games, etc., but you won't have to spend a grand up front just to start playing.
Call of Duty's publisher, Activision, observed that this new pie is titanic compared to the old one and decided to focus on grabbing a slice of it. There's now a market available to them that's way bigger, will pay the same amount of money for the disk, and doesn't necessarily need things like a dedicated server with admin features. Their new approach of releasing titles on a more annual schedule for this market works because it's substantially larger.
On the VR side of things, an HTC Vive costs eight hundred dollars. The Oculus Rift, which is just the headset and has no hand controllers or "room scale" features like the Vive, will still run you $599. Its "Touch" hand controllers became available only recently and buying those will send you up to the same price point as the Vive. Keep your wallet out, because VR applications require high end GPUs with as much memory as possible, like the Nvidia GTX 1060, which is likely to run you $270 or more. Today's virtual reality options are restricted to dedicated enthusiasts with expendable income to a much greater extent than early Call of Duty games were. Aiming for a market other than "VR enthusiasts" is senseless, there is no other market.
There are VR products that aren't quite so ludicrously expensive, like the Gear VR that uses a phone, but my experience is that they have very little to offer and casual consumers aren't going to line up to buy games for them.
While I personally align with you on this, the "ENTIRE VR community" has not turned against them. It's definitely biased, but just check out the VR communities on reddit (including /r/oculus). They act like Oculus Touch has somehow magically saved the reputation of Oculus and has actually somehow moved VR forward in an unimaginable way.
I think it's objectively obvious that the Vive is better both technologically and from a user-experience point of view (less sensors, better tracking, better end-to-end process. no lock-in), but that doesn't seem to be a common opinion in the greater VR community.
As a datapoint, it has kept me out of high-end VR completely. I am actually more ticked off at the exclusives. And I'm a geek who buys lots of tech toys. VR is as bad as consumer IoT if you think about it.
1). Yes, Space Pirate Trainer is currently my #1 VR title by a wide margin. Out of Ammo is also pretty fun, but something like an order of magnitude less fun than SPT.
2). Few in the consumer space, most of them are tech demos with little real utility. Tilt Brush and Google Earth are among the most compelling non-game offerings.
3). I've made some half hearted attempts at REPL/console type stuff in VR. It's barely useable, the angular resolution is still prohibitively small. I use 4 physical monitors normally, and while I like the idea of replacing them with a VR headset that future is still quite far away.
4). I've also made some half hearted attempts at this, and others have tried as well, but this was in the era of the DK1 and I didn't achieve anything meaningful. I'm definitely going to give it another go with the Vive at some point.
The LEAP motion however integrates very well with VR (either headset) and I'd recommend experimenting with it. I've made some pretty compelling minority-report style tech demos that feel pretty natural to use. Granted I'm aware of the LEAP's tracking limitations and stay within the space of gestures/hand poses it recognizes without problems. When I demo the tech to other people they often have MUCH more trouble than I do. Mostly because of occlusion problems. The LEAP is basically just 2 cameras without much stereo separation so one hand occluding the other, or the back of the hand occluding the fingers etc is something you've got to be cognizant of when using it.
I'm a bit of a VR enthusiast, and I'm not a gamer, so I think I can answer some of these.
>- Outside of car games, space sims, or any other game where the main character is mostly sitting down, does VR work well?
Very well. The thing I hate most, as a non-gamer, is having to learn all of the confusing controls. I really like that VR games take away most of the complication and allow you to do what feels natural. Probably for the same reasons a lot of people like the Wii. I've been having a lot of fun in games like Vanishing Realms:a first person dungeon crawling RPG http://store.steampowered.com/app/322770/ , The Unspoken: where you have magic battles in a New York like setting http://www.insomniacgames.com/games/the-unspoken/ , and a bunch of the puzzle type games.
>- Apart from games what other applications are there at the moment?
Not enough in my opinion, but I've spent the last week using Oculus Medium to make 3D models, and using Quill to make VR paintings. This is actually the area I'm most interested in, and I know that some companies are working behind closed doors at the moment to make more creative tools as well as business and social type tools.
-Anyone try replacing their monitor with a VR headset? How'd that go?
I do this frequently for consuming movies, but the resolution isn't at a point where I'd recommend it for long periods of time if you're doing text editing. I still occasionally browse and listen to music with the screen set to a gigantic size, but it hasn't replaced my monitors.
- Anyone try combining a VR headset plus a kinect? Seems like a natural combination.
Several companies and individuals are. This guy has been involved in the VR scene for many years and has some interesting experiments using several kinects to do mixed reality work http://doc-ok.org/?p=965
Anyone try combining a VR headset plus a Kinect? Seems like a natural combination.
Microsoft's HoloLens has a Kinect in it. They use it for gesture recognition and mapping the room. The amount of stuff Microsoft crammed into that headgear is insane. Four cameras, a Kinect, a GPU, a specialized GPU for the AR, an IMU, a Windows 10 PC, a projection display, speakers, and a battery. It works pretty well, too, although the projection area is too small.
Oculus Medium is pretty sweet, it's a 3D sculpting tool for free with a Rift. Some professionals have tried it out and like it. Obviously no Zbrush, but it's their first release of it.
Honestly it's really fun. I don't sculpt or anything, but drawing a tree about the size of my arm and then zooming in, "expanding it" to be the size of a normal tree and standing in it's shade was one of the trippy-ist experiences I've had. So. Cool.
> Outside of car games, space sims, or any other game where the main character is mostly sitting down, does VR work well?
Yes, you need a cockpit or something if you want to move while sitting down, otherwise most? (including me) people get sick. This has the downside of limiting the visibility though, which is a problem given the relatively low resolution. In a cockpit with limited view things further away look pretty bad.
But the Vive got 'room scale' which is where VR really shines. Basically any game you can play within your 'play area' works very good, unfortunately there are not that many. Point-and-Click teleporting can be used for moving beyond your 'play area'. It works well but breaks immersion a bit and gets awkward if you want to avoid enemies etc. I can highly recommend the Minecraft mod 'vivecraft' in that regard. My most played game with Vive so far, even though I never played Minecraft until then.
In general things work best that happen right in front and the controllers are very precise, so any interaction with them improves the immersion a lot. I'm still waiting for a RTS game where the world is scaled to the size of your play area. Skyworld looks interesting and heard good things about Out of Ammo (haven't tried either).
> Apart from games what other applications are there at the moment?
Google Earth VR was truly amazing. It's the first thing I would show anyone, it's so most closer to actually being there than anything else.
Tilt Brush is a great application as well and Kodon looks cool (haven't tried it). Both are a complete new way to create 3D objects and I believe we'll see more of these.
Unreal Engine has now support for editing in VR which looks super cool, but since I don't do game development I can't say if it's a real improvement or more a gimmick.
> Anyone try replacing their monitor with a VR headset? How'd that go?
Resolution is too bad for 'virtual screens', but I think it could be used to visualize complex data much better than any multi screen setup.
> Outside of car games, space sims, or any other game where the main character is mostly sitting down, does VR work well?
It works pretty well. There are some pretty compelling standing/room scale games out there. Either because of market immaturity or game design limitations, "larger" games (i.e. Mass Effect is large compared to Minesweeper) seem to be a bit in short supply. Oculus may have more as of the Touch launch, but I'm staying away from their ecosystem for the time being as I think what they're doing with exclusivity is hostile to consumers.
The illusion is convincing enough that a friend of mine who tried my Vive fell over because she tried to lean on a virtual table. Neither I nor anyone I've had try my Vive has suffered from any nausea.
> Apart from games what other applications are there at the moment?
Not totally sure. A lot of the obvious things have, I think, at least been tried (e.g. CAD walk-through for architects). There is also a lot of content that's hard to define as "game" or not, e.g. Tilt Brush (a "painting" program).
> Anyone try replacing their monitor with a VR headset? How'd that go?
So far, so far as I know, all the programs that attempt to render your regular desktop environment (or parts of it) to virtual displays suffer from low quality and massive latency that makes them borderline unusable. So I don't think it would be a good experience.
> Anyone try combining a VR headset plus a kinect? Seems like a natural combination.
Probably, and there are some other products out there that try to do similar things. But the held motion controllers are surprisingly natural, especially since often it makes sense to have a physical stand-in for a held object in-game.
I wanted to like VR. I made a few apps, shipped a game, tried the Rift, Vive, and PSVR. My initial enthusiasm spread to friends and family. Peers purchased GearVRs and ordered cardboard. Fast forward a few years and every single one of those headsets is gathering dust. Once enthusiastic friends won't take my VR hardware for free.
I guess my primary gripe is that it's just not comfortable relative to any other form of entertainment. It's worse than reading on a phone or tablet. It's worse than playing games on a phone, console, or PC. It's worse than watching movies in the theatre. Sure, those are high bars and VR is still kinda young. But all the hype is quickly being exposed as bullshit. VR isn't catching on. Catching on looks like the iPhone in 2008-2009 or the web in the late nineties.
I think it's disingenuous to gauge VR based on GearVR/cardboard/other low cost mobile based headsets. A good VR experience is predicated on excellent tracking to ensure a 1:1 match between movement in the real world with the virtual world, and those headsets simply cannot do that. Of course they are collecting dust, poor tracking leads to nausea.
You've hit on an interesting point. I've wondered about this before, if VR would be too onerous for people who came home and just want to relax. It requires wearing a bulky headset and potentially the same movement gameplay stuff that people criticized the Wii for. Not that it isn't really interesting, but it's definitely not as comfortable/passive as other entertainment
I have a Vive. I've used it maybe 5 times in a month. I get a bit nauseous (but not too bad, i'm very sensitive), and you kind of sweaty after a while (not because of physical labour), but those aren't really obstacles for me. It's a great product and there are some truly cool experiences there, but my main gripe is just powering everything up, unbundling cables, and putting everything on. In my case also moving a couple of chairs out of my play area.
I imagine future AR tech to be better in this regard, when you can adapt to whatever your interior looks like, and when you go wireless.
Though just getting that new wireless addon for Vive and attaching easier headphones (Rift has the edge there) would reduce the threshold for "just play for a bit".
I think this is expected, and I don't believe many people in the space thought the current round of VR would be a computing paradigm change that causes a huge growth like iPhone or the web.
The analogy I like to use is current VR is like an early PDA (Palm Pilot, PPC or Newton), which means we're 5-10 years out from a mature device that could be called a VR iPhone. Its possible that somewhere along the way everyone gives up on VR and AR, which can enable many of the same experiences anyway, but its also possible that VR is still missing a lot of what makes a compelling mass market consumer device and there will be an iPhone style product that everyone emulates in the future.
I agree with this. A mature VR device absolutely needs the following properties:
- All in one, mobile
- Positional tracking
- Full hand tracking (ie Leap Motion)
- A robust, fleshed out UI paradigm
Apple never would've release the Rift because they would've sorted out the UI first. Shit there's probably a team at Apple doing exactly that right now.
I feel like there'll be a second wave of VR, when there's a headset with resolution high enough to not look like you're pressing your face against a 1980's TV.
I don't think VR will ever catch on because it kills the socialization just be using it, and there isn't the 10x factor to overcome this hurdle.
TV, phones, and the internet all caught on because they enhanced social experiences. The TV became something to talk about and experience jointly. Phones allowed communication over great distance and quick access to information. The internet was the 10x factor of the phone.
When we start having VR rooms ala star trek, then it will catch on like fire as it will become a social experience.
A misstep? That article is an embarrassing hit piece like the many others that have been written about anyone who is willing to even slightly countenance the concept that anything tangentially Trump-related can be legitimate, just like the hits on Thiel. The Silicon Valley shame machine is an utter and complete disgrace.
I hadn't heard about how people are crucifying him for donating to an organization that was vaguely pro-Trump (which speaks to how bad SV is, not Palmer), but prior to that, the announcement of CV1 really hurt his reputation in the community. It was everything he said it wouldn't be, and very little he said it would be. Since he's active on Reddit, people went through his comment history and found all the occasions he made comments that the CV1 would be something it wasn't, or wouldn't be something it was, and confronted him. He basically said "things change" and everyone was very mad at him. He responded to a few things like a typical reddit user which is never good damage control when reddit is having a meltdown over your conduct.
People were also very upset about the Facebook buyout, which I remember hearing took the Oculus execs by surprise.
Palmer has not been popular with the community as Oculus has transitioned from a Kickstarter project to a grown-up company that got acquired for $2B. I personally think people are way too harsh on him, and that their expectations were unrealistic.
Oh no, an American attempted to participate in the American democratic political process by donating a modest amount to a group that "put up one insulting but fairly mild anti-Hillary Clinton billboard outside of Pittsburgh". Clearly he's anudda hitlah.
VR is a bubble. It is a gimmick and will never be popular and profitable (in the video game industry, there are other applications where VR is useful, like surgery,architecture...) . I'm never sick in cars, yet VR makes me sick, it gives me headache and makes me want to puke. If it does that to me, I can't imagine how painful VR is for others.
125 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadThis was the same early adopter community that wanted to spend the money, buy the rigs, develop for the platform, and further VR in general.
Now when I see old school innovators join up, it just feels like they've sold out by association.
I don't know what's going to save its image? Maybe a killer app?
Most companies gave really favorable reviews of touch, and gear vr has sold really well. I think the image problem is mostly just vocal Reddit users.
I feel like the concerns were more around what that ecosystem was going to be like, than the viability and or cool factor of the hardware itself. (i.e. just because I was an early adopter of a dk2 does not mean I am on board with Oculus for the long run).
> Most companies gave really favorable reviews of touch, and gear vr has sold really well. I think the image problem is mostly just vocal Reddit users.
Something like 80% of internet users use Facebook. Anyone that thinks that Facebook integration is going to bother the average person (or care that Facebook just owns the company) is out of touch.
Do you have a source far that percentage? It seems high.
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fac... https://www.statista.com/statistics/246230/share-of-us-inter...
"Market leader Facebook was used by 79 percent of internet users" https://www.statista.com/statistics/246230/share-of-us-inter...
"71% of online adults use Facebook" http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fac...
"72% of all online US adults visit Facebook at least once a month" https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/96-amazing-social-media-stat...
I trust Facebook with the information I explicitly share with it, i.e., posting photos or comments on Facebook. I do not trust Facebook to have unfettered access to a microphone, camera, and activity just to be able to play a game. The Facebook integration was, well, integral, and not just an opt-in for enhancing social aspects. You can't use the headset to play local content without phoning home (short of using old drivers/OpenVR or something).
Of course maybe this still places me in a minority of users because I have the same reaction when a mobile app requests every permission possible, which seems to be the case with all apps now.
Fair enough, I care about privacy as well but I'm just pointing out you need to acknowledge most people aren't bothered by this.
> I do not trust Facebook to have unfettered access to a microphone, camera, and activity just to be able to play a game.
I'm curious: do you have Whatsapp or the Facebook app installed on your phone? Facebook could spy on you via this or Oculus but if they were found out it would be seriously damaging to the company.
Many many people don't give a crap though, I have friends with Alexas and Xbox kinects in their living room. Kinect cameras can actually see you much more clearly[1] than the obfuscated Oculus ones which mainly see IR.
[1] some games have video replay on kinect, clear visualization of faces, etc
The average person is not an early adopter of expensive tech gadgets.
For me they'd save a lot of face if they just opened up their APIs/store to other headsets. They tried to pin down the PC VR HMD market and failed due to Valve/HTC. But they're still trying to become the Steam of VR despite Steam doing the same and having the distinct advantage of already being the Steam of everything else. But there's definitely room for other storefronts out there like GOG and EA's Origin so I don't begrudge them wanting to take that 30% for themselves but let me use whatever HMD I want.
Revive is a free option, that works with the Oculus Store and the Vive but that's obviously not as nice as native support from Oculus.
Then again, it could just be Facebook taking more control. Iribe is staying at the company and from the article,
> he's vacating the CEO seat and moving within the company to lead its PC VR group
So perhaps the statements are sincere and he's just staying focused on the PC division, which is all Oculus was initially.
From informal conversations I've had in the past with both people from Valve and PSVR it seems like PSVR and Vive numbers are closer to projections. I think Vive stole a lot of potential high end buyers from Oculus, not launching with Touch was a mistake for them. I also believe this market is a lot more price sensitive than Oculus thought it would be, The Rift has currently sold 200K units more than the DK2 with a much bigger marketing push, more high quality content and a better product, but 2x (or 3x if you include Touch) price point. I wonder if they should have made a "Super DK2". Lower quality headset hardware but Rift quality tracking and touch support at a lower price.
Anecdotally, many people believe VR is a niche market that is comparable to 3D TVs and doesn't add much, but I've also met people that would buy a highend VR headset (quality matters also) if the price was right and the setup was easy. A "cheap" ($250-$400) easy to use all-in-one unit with inside out tracking, tracked controllers and a good library of games, software and content could be the tipping point for the VR market.
To be honest I'm still not even sure if I'm wrong about it supporting room scale, I've seen articles mention it but their website gives me doubts.
I think Oculus doesn't want to dillute it's marketing and reach the largest core group, so front facing standing. Many people don't have 5 by 7 feet free. We're currently at the stage of enthusiasts though, which have more money and space than typical users, and will move shit to make space (I sure did), which could definitely be a mistake...
I think that Oculus is avoiding marketing room-scale because Touch legitimately does not do it very well compared to the Vive:
* It almost certainly requires a third camera, which adds another $79 to the cost.
* Even with the third camera, the controllers lose tracking fairly easily if they're oriented away from the cameras (e.g., orient them towards your torso, but with nothing blocking the line of sight to the cameras).
* Even with the third camera, you end up with a smaller tracking volume than with the Vive.
* Lots of Touch owners are reporting serious tracking issues by just setting up two sensors in opposing corners. Others say it works fairly well. Your results will most likely be random.
* The Rift cable is barely long enough to work well if you're actually walking around your space rather than just standing still.
* In the same vein, Oculus does not sell or endorse any extension cables for the Rift HMD. I've seen folks try out a lot of them with mixed success.
* The sensors have to be plugged straight into your PC, which with three cameras uses up a lot of USB ports.
* Even with the third camera, you'll only get one extension cable from Oculus, so the two existing sensors will still be pretty tethered to your PC.
* Even with the extension cable, it's not easy setting up the cameras in optimal locations throughout the room.
* Oculus does not supply any mounting brackets or sell any brackets on their website for mounting against the wall.
* The Rift and Touch do not come with any linking box, nor does Oculus sell one separately.
---
With all that said, Touch is a fantastic product and deserves the glowing reviews it's getting. It's just not designed for room-scale. It's workable, but not ideal.
AFAIK neither company mentions this in their supported PC specs, though the Rift compatability tool will warn you if you have incompatable USB ports.
I would really have liked to have known this going into my Vive purchase - I've owned it for 2 weeks and have been able to use the device twice in that time.
The other issue is my older motherboard/CPU combo which may or may not be able to support the extra PCIE use.
Overall, fun times.
Also, PSVR has sold many units, but is 2 million short of their projection[1], which is pretty abysmal. I wanted them to succeed, like every other VR enthusiast since they're the lowest more reasonable entry point as millions of people have PS4's, but that just doesn't seem to be the case... :(
[0] People have pried for when CV2 might be expected and Oculus usually say "Lifetime of Rift's will be between smartphones and gaming consoles" Phones refresh every year, consoles every 8-ish, so something like 3?
[1] over the life of the first consumer version of the Oculus Rift."
As for PSVR, I've seen reports that they are actually supply constrained (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/14/sony-expect-playstation-vr-sh...) and the smaller market size isn't due to lack of demand. It might also be because there still isn't much content available for PSVR and Sony is waiting for a larger lineup and for more PS4 Pro unit sales.
This is why I wish they would stop focusing on games. Looking at the Vive and Rift websites the #1 thing they're looking to sell people with is games. Why not utilities? Why not COMMUNITIES?
I wish they would make a big push for something that could expand our ability to meet with other people virtually. Why not a MUCK where you can speak with and interact with other people in a virtual space? It seems like there is so much more potential for self expression and interaction than people are building right now. AltspaceVR and Playstation Home were examples of this, but really doesn't bring a whole lot to the table that you couldn't get in any other MMO game.
If someone is making something like this and you need a backend or web developer, drop me a line :)
One of the most exciting VR apps is Google Earth VR, which highlights that the "killer app" for VR will have telepresence at its core.
https://vtime.net/
The demo at the bottom of the page is a virtual meeting room. It is... unfortunately broken right now and I've been too busy supporting VR clients to fix it yet, but perhaps you can see the idea there.
As the owner of a DK2, I can say that would have been a much wiser strategy. They CV1 costs roughly twice as much as the DK2 but the increase in cost is mainly attributed to adding features rather than improvements to the weaknesses of the DK2.
The biggest drawback to the DK2 was its low display resolution and having tried the CV1 and Vive, the bump to 2160x1200 made little improvement. The switch to a standard RGD pixel layout from the DK2's pentile display made more of a difference than the resolution itself. The increase in refresh rate also added little benefit over the 75hz of the DK2 in my experience.
I was massively disappointed by the news that the CV1 was forgoing the leap to 4K but I was still willing to buy in to the superior pixel layout and positional audio if the price difference mirrored the tiny improvement in the overall experience. I was expecting a $400 headset and was floored by the $600 price point.
Now I'm just clinging to my DK2 and hoping Oculus doesn't completely kill support for it while I wait for another challenger to recognize this huge gap in the market. I would have already bought thr OSVR HDK2 if it broke the HDMI spec and allowed for a true 75hz+ refresh rate.
I disagree. The biggest drawback of the DK2 and every other VR headset on the market is that the headset itself is big, bulky, and uncomfortable.
VR manufacturers really need to get the headsets down to around the size and comfort of regular glasses to prevent them from being tossed in the closet with the rollerblades and other novely items which are too annoying to use on a regular basis.
Once the novelty wears off, people will stop using it if it's not comfortable and convenient.
I've heard some people say that AR is really where VR can make mass-market appeal and I'd certainly agree that prospects for something like an environmental HUD a la Glass are much better than an "immersive" experience that leaves you blind to the real-world.
Clean up the fit and finish and minimize VR sickness for the mass market 2.0 product. Early adopter products are about keeping people engaged with content and unique features.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
EDIT: But Zuckerberg is a peener when he states that fake news is fake; he's drinking his own Koolaid.
The company has grown up very quickly, and I have to imagine at this point as CEO, he was spending most of his time in high level business talks and not doing what he loves and what he's best at.
The obvious explanation to me is that the company has decided to focus on mobile, since that's the mass market play. That would've required Iribe to devote a large portion of his time to mobile. Maybe he just wasn't the right person for that job.
> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/23/oculus-rift-upda...
> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/05/oculus-workaround-to-p...
Though they removed it after lots of users protested:
> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/06/24/oculus-rift-vive...
> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course...
But the bad image that they got for this still persists among many.
---
Another thing that Oculus did (probably because of pressure from Facebook, their parent company) is inserting dubious terms into their Terms of Service:
> http://gizmodo.com/there-are-some-super-shady-things-in-ocul...
It means that when I go online to do research on what to buy, I'm not going to find anybody praising the oculus.
You factor in the good faith of the company and past knowledge.
Look at Microsoft and the Kinect. After abandoning the hardware, people just stopped doing projects with Kinect, there was even a 3D scanner based off of it (which was cheaper than commercial model)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/oculus-touch-motion-cont... - "Until now, our recommendation was the HTC Vive, without much hesitation. But the situation just changed. From a hardware perspective, the Rift edges out HTC's Vive."
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/review-oculus-touch/ - "this is the most natural and versatile VR control experience available."
http://newatlas.com/oculus-rift-review-touch/46711/ - "So Oculus Touch is a big ergonomic advantage for the Rift, and the additions of 360 tracking, room-scale and Guardian are effective as catch-up moves. But it's content that seals the deal for the Oculus Rift as our pick for best VR headset."
From what I've heard it doesn't really work that well, even with a third camera, with intermittant tracking issues, and with much less space than the Vive.
Your quotes are either misleading or shill.
Or what you've heard is from Valve fanboys and these quotes are true. What I've heard suggests that it's this way, so .. we're stuck.
I might be in the minority, but the Valve Lab is still my favorite VR experience and Arizona Sunshine is quickly running up there for me. I don't like the locomotion AS uses, but the game is as close to the real-deal for VR as I've experienced so far.
I don't own a Vive but I've spent a good amount of time using my friend's and the display of the Rift is superior (and even he agrees). The Vive used to be a better overall package because of wands, but Touch is better (and battery life is FANTASTIC).
I don't personally agree that the Rift display is superior, but I think that's a reasonable-people-can-differ thing.
You may even see the stray oculus in the field of wild vive games.
I dont think there's a significant technical difference at this point, honestly, but the vive has won the hearts of the developer community, hands down.
Every developer I know personally who's either developing or considering developing VR titles--sample size not large, but north of ten or so?--is considering, in order, PS VR, Vive, Rift. (PS VR is difficult unless you're an established developer, obviously.)
I don't doubt they're channel stuffing (who doesn't) But it's pretty well accepted that it's been a runaway success.
It's consumer grade tech, your VR club is a different PCMR audience.
The Rift is more comfortable to wear, but it comes at the cost of reduced Field of View. The Vive can really be strapped onto the face hard, giving a view that almost verges on providing peripheral vision. The Rift feels like looking through binoculars in comparison.
The Touch controllers are much lighter and better balanced that the Vive wands. Personally, I found the grip gestures expected for the Touch to be very painful, but that will vary by person. I do think they are too clever by half. I got a better sense of "I'm holding a gun" out of gun-games on the Vive than on Touch. I also found the ability to aim at and hit targets easier on the Vive. Ultimately, I think the argument on which controller is better is missing the greater point though, as neither is an ideal design. A hand-tracking system would be much better (and no, not the Leap Motion, that thing is garbage, yes, even after the Orion update). Though Vive-centric games have always had both motion controllers and room-scale by default, whereas the Rift market is now fragmented between gamepads and Touch, and seated versus standing. Also, Touch is only just now out, whereas Vive has had developers working on content for over half a year. Indeed, Valve is already working on a new form factor for the controller.
The two camera setup for the Rift is absolutely, hands-down awful. In a room dedicated to VR setup, I constantly lost tracking when turned to the left or right. The Vive's Lighthouse system is designed to be much, much more scalable. I've never had such pervasive problems maintaining tracking with the Vive.
Yes, you're supposed to have three cameras for room-scale on the Rift. To me, that's another point against the Rift. It's a very complex system that is prone to failure. I can get the Vive to track a space about 20ft by 20ft on stock hardware, in default configuration, with no special finagling, just calibrate and go. I have to spend more money on an extra camera with the Rift, extra PCIe cards for all these USB3 cameras, and it's hit or miss whether or not I can get 10ft by 10ft working.
The Rift's camera based system is limited by how high of a resolution they can pack into the camera, how sensitive they are to tiny IR LEDs across a room, and how many spare cycles they have to run the image processing algorithm on all those camera feeds. In comparison, the Vive's Lighthouse system is limited by how bright they can make the sync pulse, which basically amounts to an IR flash bulb.
In general, I think this is indicative of a much larger problem in VR, consumer reactions, and journalistic reporting. These are all amazing pieces of technology. If you've never seen any VR system after 2015, then you're not prepared for the experience these things provide. It's really easy to get lost in the wow-factor and fail to evaluate the system as a whole. E.g. the Rift headset is more comfortable, but is comfort an important metric compared to FOV? Is it enough that the Touch controllers are theoretically "more ergonomic" than the Vive wands, or is application design built around the controller important, too? Or the MS Hololens: wave-guide displays and inside out tracking are craaaaazy! But they are also kind of janky, the FOV is unusably narrow, and Windows Holographic has terrible UI affordances.
When I stop losing the forest for the trees and focus on a unified experience, the only system I have time for in my personal life right now is the Vive. We support "everything" in the projects we build, but if I'm just trying to relax and enjoy myself, I know the Rift and Gear VR and Hololens and Daydream are all staying on the shelf.
Thanks.
Frankly, I'm just about burnt out on everything about VR that is not actually experiencing VR apps. Other VR developers and the tech press talking about VR and consumers who haven't tried VR since 1995 and consumers who are coming to VR from gaming are just driving me towards disconnecting from it all, to work in peace, but that's not exactly productive.
I have to go, there is a baby in the other room who I can hear is grunting out a massive turd. Please find my email in my profile. I think there is something more to discuss here RE: The Myth of The Best and on pragmatism.
What you're seeing is negative feedback from owners of competitive devices.
The people who pay attention to this type of thing are VR enthusiasts, who are a minority compared to the larger pool Facebook is aiming for.
An interesting example would be Call of Duty: Infinity Warfare. Its trailer is one of the most downvoted videos on YouTube. As far as I understand, hardcore fans hated it and somehow managed to get downvoting the trailer to be some kind of viral thing (Otherwise, how did it get to those numbers? Nothing about the trailer per-se was that bad. There's even Jon Snow in it).
I thought that this would have no effect on the game's success, since I don't think average consumers are particularly interested in the opinions of hardcore gaming snobs. However, the game has since been released and--as far as I know--bombed. Of course, that could also be due to the game being not that good.
There's no doubt that "influencers" are important in driving sales, but I'm skeptical whether they can play a similar role in preventing sales--especially if average consumers see value in the underlying product.
One related theory I can't find any wikipedia information on stems from an old TED talk from 2010:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/first-follower-theor...
Even if we traditionally consider ourselves (I've always been a "nerd"/"core"/"early adopter"/whatever) on the sidelines, when our industry and interests have taken center stage I think we have had a greater influence than we care to admit, or even want.
Some people want to be first at something, but many people don't, either for lack of anyone else to use said thing with, or lack of support, or high cost of entry, or unproven quality, etc.
I hate to get political, but I think it's increasingly clear that movements can begin with something as simple as a few memes from someones computer.
But it's of course hard to tell if "our" audience is the right one at all times (eg Google Glass, Google+), when comparing to Facebook (select few colleges) and Snapchat spectacles ("celebrity" millenials).
Oculus was brand new, and as one of their first acts they pissed off most of the people who had supported them, and the VR community in general.
With a perfectly good alternative (that is in some ways better), why would any enthusiast choose Oculus at this point?
And non-enthusiasts aren't buying the systems because they're too expensive and there are too few games. They effectively handed their entire market to another company for the next few years.
> [...]
> There's no doubt that "influencers" are important in driving sales, but I'm skeptical whether they can play a similar role in preventing sales--especially if average consumers see value in the underlying product.
The problem is: The necessary system requirements for an Oculus Rift (CPU, GPU (in particular), USB ports) are rather high. The average potential consumer you mention might see value in the Oculus Rift - but will probably not be enthusiastic enough to be willing to additionally buy a high-end PC etc. So the large pool that you believe Facebook is aiming for will contain many more hardcore enthusiasts and much less "average consumers" than you think.
The differences between the market of people buying console-focused first-person shooters and the one for virtual reality headset systems make this comparison not really work.
Call of Duty was originally a much-beloved FPS series during a time when the genre was dominated by multiplayer games with high skill ceilings and "twitch" or reflex-based mechanics. They catered to the market available to them at the time, which was enthusiast gamers with the hardware required to run 3D video games (and to a lesser extend internet access that could play them online.) Consoles had existed for a while, but they weren't always in the position they are now. CoD 2 was released in late 2005, the Xbox 360 was released right around the same time, and the PS3 wouldn't come out until the next year. Internet multiplayer has been a reality on the PC since the 90's but Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network didn't even exist until the early 2000's. Halo: Combat Evolved on the original Xbox famously didn't support internet multiplayer, but its PC version did.
By this point it's obvious that the numbers in gaming are shifting. The relatively low sticker price of a gaming console means you don't have to work with the segment of the population who have enthusiast-grade computers. Pretty much anyone can afford to buy an Xbox 360. Crucially, the expense of console gaming isn't frontloaded. The most expensive part of being in the PC gaming segment was (and still is) either buying a bunch of components and assembling yourself, or spending even more for a prebuilt. Assembling computer parts is actually not that hard, but not assembling computer parts is even easier, and you can walk out of any department store with a home console for a few hundred dollars. You'll spend more than that over time from subscriptions, peripherals, more expensive games, etc., but you won't have to spend a grand up front just to start playing.
Call of Duty's publisher, Activision, observed that this new pie is titanic compared to the old one and decided to focus on grabbing a slice of it. There's now a market available to them that's way bigger, will pay the same amount of money for the disk, and doesn't necessarily need things like a dedicated server with admin features. Their new approach of releasing titles on a more annual schedule for this market works because it's substantially larger.
On the VR side of things, an HTC Vive costs eight hundred dollars. The Oculus Rift, which is just the headset and has no hand controllers or "room scale" features like the Vive, will still run you $599. Its "Touch" hand controllers became available only recently and buying those will send you up to the same price point as the Vive. Keep your wallet out, because VR applications require high end GPUs with as much memory as possible, like the Nvidia GTX 1060, which is likely to run you $270 or more. Today's virtual reality options are restricted to dedicated enthusiasts with expendable income to a much greater extent than early Call of Duty games were. Aiming for a market other than "VR enthusiasts" is senseless, there is no other market.
There are VR products that aren't quite so ludicrously expensive, like the Gear VR that uses a phone, but my experience is that they have very little to offer and casual consumers aren't going to line up to buy games for them.
I think it's objectively obvious that the Vive is better both technologically and from a user-experience point of view (less sensors, better tracking, better end-to-end process. no lock-in), but that doesn't seem to be a common opinion in the greater VR community.
- Outside of car games, space sims, or any other game where the main character is mostly sitting down, does VR work well?
- Apart from games what other applications are there at the moment?
-Anyone try replacing their monitor with a VR headset? How'd that go?
- Anyone try combining a VR headset plus a kinect? Seems like a natural combination.
2). Few in the consumer space, most of them are tech demos with little real utility. Tilt Brush and Google Earth are among the most compelling non-game offerings.
3). I've made some half hearted attempts at REPL/console type stuff in VR. It's barely useable, the angular resolution is still prohibitively small. I use 4 physical monitors normally, and while I like the idea of replacing them with a VR headset that future is still quite far away.
4). I've also made some half hearted attempts at this, and others have tried as well, but this was in the era of the DK1 and I didn't achieve anything meaningful. I'm definitely going to give it another go with the Vive at some point. The LEAP motion however integrates very well with VR (either headset) and I'd recommend experimenting with it. I've made some pretty compelling minority-report style tech demos that feel pretty natural to use. Granted I'm aware of the LEAP's tracking limitations and stay within the space of gestures/hand poses it recognizes without problems. When I demo the tech to other people they often have MUCH more trouble than I do. Mostly because of occlusion problems. The LEAP is basically just 2 cameras without much stereo separation so one hand occluding the other, or the back of the hand occluding the fingers etc is something you've got to be cognizant of when using it.
Very well. The thing I hate most, as a non-gamer, is having to learn all of the confusing controls. I really like that VR games take away most of the complication and allow you to do what feels natural. Probably for the same reasons a lot of people like the Wii. I've been having a lot of fun in games like Vanishing Realms:a first person dungeon crawling RPG http://store.steampowered.com/app/322770/ , The Unspoken: where you have magic battles in a New York like setting http://www.insomniacgames.com/games/the-unspoken/ , and a bunch of the puzzle type games.
>- Apart from games what other applications are there at the moment?
Not enough in my opinion, but I've spent the last week using Oculus Medium to make 3D models, and using Quill to make VR paintings. This is actually the area I'm most interested in, and I know that some companies are working behind closed doors at the moment to make more creative tools as well as business and social type tools.
-Anyone try replacing their monitor with a VR headset? How'd that go?
I do this frequently for consuming movies, but the resolution isn't at a point where I'd recommend it for long periods of time if you're doing text editing. I still occasionally browse and listen to music with the screen set to a gigantic size, but it hasn't replaced my monitors.
- Anyone try combining a VR headset plus a kinect? Seems like a natural combination.
Several companies and individuals are. This guy has been involved in the VR scene for many years and has some interesting experiments using several kinects to do mixed reality work http://doc-ok.org/?p=965
Microsoft's HoloLens has a Kinect in it. They use it for gesture recognition and mapping the room. The amount of stuff Microsoft crammed into that headgear is insane. Four cameras, a Kinect, a GPU, a specialized GPU for the AR, an IMU, a Windows 10 PC, a projection display, speakers, and a battery. It works pretty well, too, although the projection area is too small.
Honestly it's really fun. I don't sculpt or anything, but drawing a tree about the size of my arm and then zooming in, "expanding it" to be the size of a normal tree and standing in it's shade was one of the trippy-ist experiences I've had. So. Cool.
> Outside of car games, space sims, or any other game where the main character is mostly sitting down, does VR work well?
Yes, you need a cockpit or something if you want to move while sitting down, otherwise most? (including me) people get sick. This has the downside of limiting the visibility though, which is a problem given the relatively low resolution. In a cockpit with limited view things further away look pretty bad.
But the Vive got 'room scale' which is where VR really shines. Basically any game you can play within your 'play area' works very good, unfortunately there are not that many. Point-and-Click teleporting can be used for moving beyond your 'play area'. It works well but breaks immersion a bit and gets awkward if you want to avoid enemies etc. I can highly recommend the Minecraft mod 'vivecraft' in that regard. My most played game with Vive so far, even though I never played Minecraft until then.
In general things work best that happen right in front and the controllers are very precise, so any interaction with them improves the immersion a lot. I'm still waiting for a RTS game where the world is scaled to the size of your play area. Skyworld looks interesting and heard good things about Out of Ammo (haven't tried either).
> Apart from games what other applications are there at the moment?
Google Earth VR was truly amazing. It's the first thing I would show anyone, it's so most closer to actually being there than anything else. Tilt Brush is a great application as well and Kodon looks cool (haven't tried it). Both are a complete new way to create 3D objects and I believe we'll see more of these. Unreal Engine has now support for editing in VR which looks super cool, but since I don't do game development I can't say if it's a real improvement or more a gimmick.
> Anyone try replacing their monitor with a VR headset? How'd that go?
Resolution is too bad for 'virtual screens', but I think it could be used to visualize complex data much better than any multi screen setup.
> Outside of car games, space sims, or any other game where the main character is mostly sitting down, does VR work well?
It works pretty well. There are some pretty compelling standing/room scale games out there. Either because of market immaturity or game design limitations, "larger" games (i.e. Mass Effect is large compared to Minesweeper) seem to be a bit in short supply. Oculus may have more as of the Touch launch, but I'm staying away from their ecosystem for the time being as I think what they're doing with exclusivity is hostile to consumers.
The illusion is convincing enough that a friend of mine who tried my Vive fell over because she tried to lean on a virtual table. Neither I nor anyone I've had try my Vive has suffered from any nausea.
> Apart from games what other applications are there at the moment?
Not totally sure. A lot of the obvious things have, I think, at least been tried (e.g. CAD walk-through for architects). There is also a lot of content that's hard to define as "game" or not, e.g. Tilt Brush (a "painting" program).
> Anyone try replacing their monitor with a VR headset? How'd that go?
So far, so far as I know, all the programs that attempt to render your regular desktop environment (or parts of it) to virtual displays suffer from low quality and massive latency that makes them borderline unusable. So I don't think it would be a good experience.
> Anyone try combining a VR headset plus a kinect? Seems like a natural combination.
Probably, and there are some other products out there that try to do similar things. But the held motion controllers are surprisingly natural, especially since often it makes sense to have a physical stand-in for a held object in-game.
I guess my primary gripe is that it's just not comfortable relative to any other form of entertainment. It's worse than reading on a phone or tablet. It's worse than playing games on a phone, console, or PC. It's worse than watching movies in the theatre. Sure, those are high bars and VR is still kinda young. But all the hype is quickly being exposed as bullshit. VR isn't catching on. Catching on looks like the iPhone in 2008-2009 or the web in the late nineties.
I imagine future AR tech to be better in this regard, when you can adapt to whatever your interior looks like, and when you go wireless.
Though just getting that new wireless addon for Vive and attaching easier headphones (Rift has the edge there) would reduce the threshold for "just play for a bit".
The analogy I like to use is current VR is like an early PDA (Palm Pilot, PPC or Newton), which means we're 5-10 years out from a mature device that could be called a VR iPhone. Its possible that somewhere along the way everyone gives up on VR and AR, which can enable many of the same experiences anyway, but its also possible that VR is still missing a lot of what makes a compelling mass market consumer device and there will be an iPhone style product that everyone emulates in the future.
- All in one, mobile - Positional tracking - Full hand tracking (ie Leap Motion) - A robust, fleshed out UI paradigm
Apple never would've release the Rift because they would've sorted out the UI first. Shit there's probably a team at Apple doing exactly that right now.
TV, phones, and the internet all caught on because they enhanced social experiences. The TV became something to talk about and experience jointly. Phones allowed communication over great distance and quick access to information. The internet was the 10x factor of the phone.
When we start having VR rooms ala star trek, then it will catch on like fire as it will become a social experience.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/26/why-is-the-oculus-founde...
People were also very upset about the Facebook buyout, which I remember hearing took the Oculus execs by surprise.
Palmer has not been popular with the community as Oculus has transitioned from a Kickstarter project to a grown-up company that got acquired for $2B. I personally think people are way too harsh on him, and that their expectations were unrealistic.