Oculus Rift

[RoadDoggFL]

There's no reason to think AR/MR couldn't provide VR experiences eventually.

 

[Belamorte]

Have you seen any Tilt Brush videos? That alone seems like a compelling-enough application to make VR a mainstay for years to come.

Ohhh, I do not argue that it does not have applications like that, engineering, medical, military and so forth. I just do not see an average person sitting around playing games with the headset once the novelty wears off.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

Well even if it only lets you play an immersive board game with family and friends abroad, isn't that something? It's still a video game, and that will increase comfort and open up new gaming genres that are better suited to VR. No telling what's in store because we're really at the Pong stage of the medium.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Have you seen any Tilt Brush videos? That alone seems like a compelling-enough application to make VR a mainstay for years to come.

Thats a very niche purpose though, everybody can't draw.

 

[Belamorte]

Well even if it only lets you play an immersive board game with family and friends abroad, isn't that something? It's still a video game, and that will increase comfort and open up new gaming genres that are better suited to VR. No telling what's in store because we're really at the Pong stage of the medium.

If families are putting on headsets to play a board game and not look at each other and communicate I think that would be a fairly dysfunctional family. Though you are right it is very early and I may be way wrong, I just cannot see it working with the headset/mask.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

Thats a very niche purpose though, everybody can't draw.

But everybody can appreciate impossible art that feels like it's real.

If families are putting on headsets to play a board game and not look at each other and communicate I think that would be a fairly dysfunctional family. Though you are right it is very early and I may be way wrong, I just cannot see it working with the headset/mask.

You missed that I said abroad.

 

[Osprey]

There's no reason to think AR/MR couldn't provide VR experiences eventually.

It wouldn't be AR then. I think that what you mean is that the headsets that currently do AR may offer VR eventually, and they may, but, if/when they do that, they'll be embracing and promoting VR, not sinking it.

Well even if it only lets you play an immersive board game with family and friends abroad, isn't that something? It's still a video game, and that will increase comfort and open up new gaming genres that are better suited to VR. No telling what's in store because we're really at the Pong stage of the medium.

That's one thing that headsets will never do. They will always be less comfortable (significantly less so early on) than wearing nothing at all. That's one of the challenges and could be a prime reason why headsets don't take off. It's why 3D TVs haven't taken off as hoped. People consume their entertainment at home because they want to do so as comfortably as possible, and wearing 3D glasses goes against that. Belamorte has a point that, once the novelty wears off, people may ultimately decide that they're OK with a less immersive experience that's more comfortable (ex. put their money into buying larger and better monitors, rather than headsets).

 

[Belamorte]

You missed that I said abroad.

Opps sorry I did miss that. Though my point still is that until the headset is gone it will never 'take-off', not to mention cost (although that will come down as all tech does).

 

[RoadDoggFL]

It wouldn't be AR then. I think that what you mean is that the headsets that currently do AR may offer VR eventually, and they may, but, if/when they do that, they'll be embracing and promoting VR, not sinking it.

It would just be considered a leg of Magic Leap's experience, not a unique experience of its own. If VR has a hard time establishing itself, but MR succeeds, when MR headsets advance to the point where they're providing completely immersive experiences that transport you to a different place, very few people will bother to distinguish the fact that it's VR vs MR. It's just something else their MR headset does while still knowing where you are in a space and keeping you from walking into traffic.

That's one thing that headsets will never do. They will always be less comfortable (significantly less so early on) than wearing nothing at all. That's one of the challenges and could be a prime reason why headsets don't take off. It's why 3D TVs haven't taken off as hoped. People consume their entertainment at home because they want to do so as comfortably as possible, and wearing 3D glasses goes against that. Belamorte has a point that, once the novelty wears off, people may ultimately decide that they're OK with a less immersive experience that's more comfortable (ex. put their money into buying larger and better monitors, rather than headsets).

I mean the things like online boardgames with friends and family will get people comfortable with VR, not that VR will be more comfortable in real life (though that's certainly true, as I'm sure there'll be settings to let you not see people staring at you or invading your personal space).

I think the amount of people writing off the format before even trying the most compelling applications is amusing, even though they're just scratching the surface of where it's going. Eye tracking, in particular will likely be a game changer and create brand new genres that skeptics can't possibly even consider yet. Hell, existing genres like RTSs could have a renaissance once we're interacting with them just by looking around.

It could obviously all be a massive flop, but the relatively weak tech demos are already so impressive, and the barrier to entry will plummet this year with PSVR and only continue to fall.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

If you want to see Oculus Rift in action, iracing is supporting it.

 

[Belamorte]

I mean the things like online boardgames with friends and family will get people comfortable with VR, not that VR will be more comfortable in real life (though that's certainly true, as I'm sure there'll be settings to let you not see people staring at you or invading your personal space).

I think the amount of people writing off the format before even trying the most compelling applications is amusing, even though they're just scratching the surface of where it's going. Eye tracking, in particular will likely be a game changer and create brand new genres that skeptics can't possibly even consider yet. Hell, existing genres like RTSs could have a renaissance once we're interacting with them just by looking around.

It could obviously all be a massive flop, but the relatively weak tech demos are already so impressive, and the barrier to entry will plummet this year with PSVR and only continue to fall.

I get where you are going with that argument. But, do you really see your parents/siblings strapping on a headset to play a board game or visit? (not only do they need a powerful computer to run it, set it up in an area and the cost)? I am mid 40's and perhaps out of it, but I could never see friends or family spending what it cost (yes that will come down I know), when you have things like Facetime to do that same thing and are not so... complicated is the best word I can think of.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

I get where you are going with that argument. But, do you really see your parents/siblings strapping on a headset to play a board game or visit?

To interact with my daughter? Absolutely.

(not only do they need a powerful computer to run it, set it up in an area and the cost)?

Not true, stereoscopic video can be done by cell phones (and not only the latest, most powerful ones), and even VR rendered within a 3D game engine can be done on modest hardware if you're not trying to make it look photorealistic. Back before FB bought Oculus, Valve said that simple graphics were actually more compelling in VR because it kept it away from the uncanny valley, and it was easier to buy into the experience.

I am mid 40's and perhaps out of it, but I could never see friends or family spending what it cost (yes that will come down I know), when you have things like Facetime to do that same thing and are not so... complicated is the best word I can think of.

VR costs ~$20 right now, and that's enough to get positive reactions out of people (I loaded up Google Earth on my Nexus 5 and my sister got a kick out of it, I also enjoy it, fwiw). When people get to try it and find it doesn't cost the thousands of dollars they think it does, and as more and more uses become available, I don't see a huge barrier that needs to be overcome for people to buy in.

 

[Osprey]

To interact with my daughter? Absolutely.

I think that most people are fine with interacting remotely simply via voice/video conversation (i.e. phone calls and Skype/Facetime). Our parents, especially, are from a generation that values simply talking to one another, rather than engaging in activities, especially using technology that they're not comfortable with. Right now, they have the ability to interact with their grandchildren by playing online games with them, but do they or do they prefer to simply call and talk to them, instead?

I'm with Belamorte in just not seeing board games being a big thing with VR or even an entry point activity. You can already play online board games to interact with family and friends remotely, but who does that and why would VR change that? I think that most people would pass on that and save the board games for when everyone is together in person and it's a "real" social activity. That doesn't mean that, in the distant future, we won't be doing something similar to what you describe, but I don't see that happening soon and not when you have to strap on a bulky headset.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

I think that most people are fine with interacting remotely simply via voice/video conversation (i.e. phone calls and Skype/Facetime). Our parents, especially, are from a generation that values simply talking to one another, rather than engaging in activities, especially using technology that they're not comfortable with. Right now, they have the ability to interact with their grandchildren by playing online games with them, but do they or do they prefer to simply call and talk to them, instead?

I'm with Belamorte in just not seeing board games being a big thing with VR or even an entry point activity. You can already play online board games to interact with family and friends remotely, but who does that and why would VR change that? I think that most people would pass on that and save the board games for when everyone is together in person and it's a "real" social activity. That doesn't mean that, in the distant future, we won't be doing something similar to what you describe, but I don't see that happening soon and not when you have to strap on a bulky headset.

They're fine with video chat just like they were fine with long distance phone calls, which they were fine with just like they were fine with sending letters through the mail. Each step brings us closer to sharing a physical space, and you're high if you don't think grandparents want to share a physical space with their grandkids. If VR brings them closer to it, they'll do it. The technical and financial barriers to entry are higher right now than they'll be soon soon enough.

And I only used board games as an example of a simple interaction that is much more enjoyable in person, which VR will be able to better simulate than any other technology currently available. If you want to dissect and distort every aspect of that suggestion feel free, but I'll be digging this thread up down the line and you'll brush it off as "oh well, lol."

 

[Osprey]

They're fine with video chat just like they were fine with long distance phone calls, which they were fine with just like they were fine with sending letters through the mail. Each step brings us closer to sharing a physical space, and you're high if you don't think grandparents want to share a physical space with their grandkids. If VR brings them closer to it, they'll do it. The technical and financial barriers to entry are higher right now than they'll be soon soon enough.

I think that they're fine with video chat because it's a natural extension of phone calls and still conversation for conversation's sake. Gaming is a very different activity. Everyone appreciates conversations; not everyone appreciates playing games, especially online. Some folks may choose to VR game with their grandkids, but I just don't see that being commonplace any time soon or the thing that gets people comfortable with VR. Eventually, it probably will be commonplace and we'll VR game with our grandkids, but that'll be a ways off and after (if) VR has already established and cemented itself, IMO.

And I only used board games as an example of a simple interaction that is much more enjoyable in person, which VR will be able to better simulate than any other technology currently available.

I understand that it was just an example. I just disagreed with that particular example. It seems that you're taking offense to it and taking it as nitpicking, but I see having a difference of opinion as constructive to keeping discussion (and this thread) going.

If you want to dissect and distort every aspect of that suggestion feel free, but I'll be digging this thread up down the line and you'll brush it off as "oh well, lol."

I don't see how you can read what I wrote and interpret that as "dissect[ing] and distort[ing] every aspect" of your suggestion. I simply politely and respectfully disagreed with you. That's nothing that I need ever be ashamed of even if I eventually end up being wrong.

 

[Seedtype]

If you want to see Oculus Rift in action, iracing is supporting it.

One of the main reasons I'm getting an Oculus Rift. I don't have the room for a three monitor setup so this is the best solution I hope.

I've been using nowinstock.net for keeping track when the Rift arrives at Best Buy's online store. This morning I woke up early and couldn't get back to sleep, and I was able to snag one around 4am. It seems like the 2:30a-4:00a EST time is the time when they get in stock.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

I think that they're fine with video chat because it's a natural extension of phone calls and still conversation for conversation's sake. Gaming is a very different activity. Everyone appreciates conversations; not everyone appreciates playing games, especially online. Some folks may choose to VR game with their grandkids, but I just don't see that being commonplace any time soon or the thing that gets people comfortable with VR. Eventually, it probably will be commonplace and we'll VR game with our grandkids, but that'll be a ways off and after (if) VR has already established and cemented itself, IMO.

Playing a board game (or practically any other activity you do while talking in the same room) isn't "gaming," though. That's why I suggested it. It's an activity that everyone's used to that will come through very effectively in VR, which instantly makes the connection in your mind of the potential of the medium. It's not a whole new experience or activity that a person has to learn, it's "oh wow, these goggles make it almost exactly like we're sitting at the same table."

I understand that it was just an example. I just disagreed with that particular example. It seems that you're taking offense to it and taking it as nitpicking, but I see having a difference of opinion as constructive to keeping discussion (and this thread) going.

Then don't react to it as if it's my ultimate example of the pinnacle of VR, and any reason against it is proof that it'll fail. VR home videos will be another great application, but capture is currently limited to 360 video, so the VR experience probably isn't terribly compelling yet.

I don't see how you can read what I wrote and interpret that as "dissect[ing] and distort[ing] every aspect" of your suggestion. I simply politely and respectfully disagreed with you. That's nothing that I need ever be ashamed of even if I eventually end up being wrong.

I only threw it out there as an approachable activity that will break down the psychological barrier that "VR isn't for me," because instead of riding a roller coaster jumping over a volcano or dodging a T-Rex as it tries to eat you, you're sitting at the table with your grandkids playing a game of checkers. Once that barrier is gone, other experiences that might not have been enough to make them think "I can do that" are suddenly interesting.

Instead, you want to argue that nobody wants to play with family because they have webcams. Yes, it's completely distorting the entire point I was making.

 

[Osprey]

Then don't react to it as if it's my ultimate example of the pinnacle of VR, and any reason against it is proof that it'll fail. VR home videos will be another great application, but capture is currently limited to 360 video, so the VR experience probably isn't terribly compelling yet.

I only threw it out there as an approachable activity that will break down the psychological barrier that "VR isn't for me," because instead of riding a roller coaster jumping over a volcano or dodging a T-Rex as it tries to eat you, you're sitting at the table with your grandkids playing a game of checkers. Once that barrier is gone, other experiences that might not have been enough to make them think "I can do that" are suddenly interesting.

Instead, you want to argue that nobody wants to play with family because they have webcams. Yes, it's completely distorting the entire point I was making.

First of all, I don't see how opining that people will prefer more conventional interaction methods equals "distorting [your] entire point." What does one have to do with the other?

Secondly, you just said, "Then don't react to it as if it's my ultimate example of the pinnacle of VR, and any reason against it is proof that it'll fail"? If you grossly distorting my point is your proof of me distorting yours, then who's really the one doing it?

I actually understand your point/example perfectly well, and have all along. I just have a small disagreement with it, but, instead of just accepting that (with or without debating it), it seems that your idea of standing by your argument is to insist that I just don't understand it or that I'm distorting it. You just gave an example and I just had a bit of disagreement with that particular example; that's all. You don't need to get defensive and argue back that "it's just an example." I know that it's an example. Don't read more into it than that. It doesn't mean that I don't agree with your general point that improving simple activities will help make VR mainstream. We may just disagree on which activities those are. You may perceive it as nitpicking, but it's an excuse to have something to debate and keep a discussion on an interesting topic like this alive.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

First of all, I don't see how opining that people will prefer more conventional interaction methods equals "distorting [your] entire point." What does one have to do with the other?

They're fine with it until they try something better, then they're not. There's nothing conventional about skype, most people hadn't tried webcams until relatively recently, so it's not like I'm suggesting replacing some ancient method of communication. Also, the distortion of my point was when an example I threw out as a simple activity most people were familiar with could open people up to trying more VR was instead treated like my example of a killer app.

Secondly, you just said, "Then don't react to it as if it's my ultimate example of the pinnacle of VR, and any reason against it is proof that it'll fail"? If you grossly distorting my point is your proof of me distorting yours, then who's really the one doing it?

Again, the real compelling stuff will come and won't necessarily be what gets people to try VR. Rather, it'll be simple things that people feel comfortable with already, then they'll realize that VR isn't intimidating and whatever the killer app ends up being won't have two hurdles to clear.

I actually understand your point/example perfectly well, and have all along. I just have a small disagreement with it, but, instead of just accepting that (with or without debating it), it seems that your idea of standing by your argument is to insist that I just don't understand it or that I'm distorting it. You just gave an example and I just had a bit of disagreement with that particular example; that's all. You don't need to get defensive and argue back that "it's just an example." I know that it's an example. Don't read more into it than that. It doesn't mean that I don't agree with your general point that improving simple activities will help make VR mainstream. We may just disagree on which activities those are. You may perceive it as nitpicking, but it's an excuse to have something to debate and keep a discussion on an interesting topic like this alive.

Right, you understand my point perfectly well but would rather get caught up on the details of how not compelling board games are. Apparently if the "foot in the door" experience isn't enough to hook the world, the door stays shut forever.

 

[Seedtype]

My impressions after racing with the Rift this weekend:

-At first, I was definitely feeling some motion sickness and headaches, but I just did an hour session tonight and I was fine.
-I used to use the TrackIR all the time in flight/space sims, the Rift's head tracking is far superior to that. What's really cool is I can look behind my car and the tracking remains strong.
-Okay, I've been waiting a LONG time for depth perception while playing sim games, the Rift does a really great job in that sense. It makes such a difference in feeling the car. My braking has improved dramatically in iRacing. I always felt a disconnect with it but now I feel like how I would with actual driving. Incredible. I also can tell my proximity to walls far greater than before. For that reason alone, I'm keeping my Rift until next gen at least.

My biggest complaints:
-Needs more resolution. Small text comes across as too blurry. I got iRacing setup to where I can read everything okay at least. (Of course, iRacing itself could work on improving readability and the GUI for VR users as well)
-Again, the resolution also makes it a little harder to pick up reference points on the track. A monitor is far superior in that regard.
-There is definitely a screen door effect going on, I'm starting to ignore it, but for some it might bother you.
-Does need more FOV. Of course, I'm coming from a single monitor setup, so of course my FOV is improved going to Rift. But if you have a triple-screen setup, I don't think you would want to leave it for the Rift.
-You do need to wipe the lenses several times. Keep a fan on you to reduce heat.(Seriously, you need to have a fan blowing on your face)
-I do not care for the exclusivity of the Oculus shop. But, I understand that Oculus is paying devs to develop software for it, so they do have that right to demand exclusivity for it...

This is the first time I've ever been an early adopter of a piece of tech. I think if you're a sim enthusiast, you'll love the depth perception and head tracking that the Rift gives you. But I think if you own the Rift you'll be ditching it for the next gen immediately unless they mess it up.
Still pretty awesome, I think the tech has a future for sure.

 

[Kestrel]

I think I'm likely to wait until VR is standardized, and fairly mainstream - but it's encouraging to hear a positive review of Oculus Rift. I hope the tech takes off in a big way!

Not to derail the thread by bringing up an argument from a few days ago - but I saw the argument of boardgames not being all that compelling a reason to use VR. Initially, I was going to agree - I don't see myself doing so. But, then I stopped to think about my parents. My mom calls up her grandchildren to talk, to read them stories. She occasionally Skypes with them. My dad is an introvert, and doesn't do much interacting with them unless he's there in person - even when there's Skype sessions, he'll sit there while my mom talks (I've got them set up so they can Skype on their 50" tv, and their webcam covers most of their living room).

My mom would absolutely play boardgames with her grandchildren - and I'm pretty sure my dad would too - it would actually make more comfortable interaction from a distance for him than regular Skyping and phone calls.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

-I do not care for the exclusivity of the Oculus shop. But, I understand that Oculus is paying devs to develop software for it, so they do have that right to demand exclusivity for it...

The problem that people have found is that Oculus has at least bought timed exclusivity for games they didn't help fund. Valve has also funded games, without any requirement for exclusivity.

 

[RoadDoggFL]

Amazing.

Can this just be a general VR thread now? Anyway, here's a great example of why VR's killer apps won't necessarily be what gets people to try it. Relaxing on a beach instead of spending another day in a nursing home opens the door, and who knows what compelling experience actually ends up being the one that shows the potential of the medium.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Amazing.

Can this just be a general VR thread now? Anyway, here's a great example of why VR's killer apps won't necessarily be what gets people to try it. Relaxing on a beach instead of spending another day in a nursing home opens the door, and who knows what compelling experience actually ends up being the one that shows the potential of the medium.

Its starting to seem like big time AAA games will not become huge on VR, even with PSVR making it relatively more affordable at (from what I've heard) decent quality, it seems like motion sickness is a real problem for action or driving games. Supposedly Vive is a bit better with its requirement to stand up and move around but it doesn't look like theyre going to solve that problem at the very least not this generation.

To be honest the future of VR in my mind is movies, art/drawing, and maybe concerts

For videogames, I can see on rail shooters making a big comeback on it.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Its starting to seem like big time AAA games will not become huge on VR, even with PSVR making it relatively more affordable at (from what I've heard) decent quality, it seems like motion sickness is a real problem for action or driving games. Supposedly Vive is a bit better with its requirement to stand up and move around but it doesn't look like theyre going to solve that problem at the very least not this generation.

To be honest the future of VR in my mind is movies, art/drawing, and maybe concerts

For videogames, I can see on rail shooters making a big comeback on it.

I have a Vive and while moving around in your space certainly helps big time to prevent motion sickness, I feel like motion sickness in general is a much bigger fear people have than they should have. I know some people just suffer from motion sickness with games and I don't think anything will help those people. However, Onward is a great example, there are instances where you may feel some motion sickness at first but you get used to it pretty quickly.

Onward is a military shooter where you move using the trackpad on the controller. The first couple of minutes I felt severe motion sickness because you're moving in game but you're not physically moving. However, after a few minutes, my mind had already adjusted. I have about 7 hours on record on the game (I would have a lot more if I've had more time to play but the past couple weeks have been really busy for me.) I've also had one session that went for 3.5 hours straight. I haven't had a single issue of motion sickness since that initial time.

My concern is people may complain about motion sickness but give up right away, not giving their body and mind time to adjust to it. You obivously need to be able to adjust reality from fantasy though. I remember my brother telling me that he felt like he was driving in a video game while driving home after playing a shooter in VR for a half hour. My brother doesn't really play any games anymore though.

It's all such a unique experience though. You really have to use it for a few hours, don't get scared off right away. It's really amazing and like something you've never done before. I hope VR becomes mainstream not because I bought in early, but because it really is a ton of fun and for the first time in probably the past 10 years, that I'm truly amazed by gaming again.