Oculus Rift

Dyr

Zillah wrote: »

Whenever I hear VR sceptics I can't help but imagine some old lord harumphing as a model-T putters by saying it'll never catch on.

I tend to think of this

http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/simpsonss7e23muchapuaboutnothingfrinkiac7.mp4

Maximus Alexander

Zillah wrote: »

Whenever I hear VR sceptics I can't help but imagine some old lord harumphing as a model-T putters by saying it'll never catch on.

Whenever I hear people say VR is going to be the next big thing I can't help but think of the people who were falling over each other to get the last Nintnendo Wii before Christmas, or the people who were wetting themselves over the Kinect and zealously sure that it would change the way we play games and get us up off the couch. Or the people who rushed out to buy 3D TVs, fully sure that it was the next wave and everything from Coronation Street to Premier League football would be all 3D, all the time.

For every breakaway hit there are a thousand technologies that convince some hardcore enthusiasts they're going to change the 'x' industry, before they fizzle out into obscurity.

Bear in mind, that to even be posting on a gaming related forum, someone already needs to be relatively 'hardcore', and even among that group there's plenty of disinterest. To your average gamer, VR still looks more or less like a fun-for-five-minutes party trick. I think you way overestimate how exciting people in general find this.

I'm not sure what will happen with VR ultimately, because I can't see the future, but it's more likely that it won't be a mainstream hit that changes how we consume media than that it will. Simply because the vast majority of attempts to change the way we consume media fail.

Falthyron

Bambi wrote: »

DOOM is the classic run n gun FPS model and it won't work as is in VR, you need to change the experience.

This is a paradigm shift, a lot of the models we grew up on will not make the jump

A game like DOOM is a game that would actually make me consider buying a VR headset. Likewise with Mirror's Edge or Dying Light or SOMA or a solid AAA FPS like a COD Single-Player campaign. That's the kind of experience I want, not Job Simulator.

I wouldn't define it as a 'paradigm shift' - far too hyperbolic given the fact that we have yet to see the device released to the general public and gauge that reaction to a myriad of things, such as price, performance, software, health issues.

This has nothing to do with 'old man' syndrome, but a simple challenge of the facts as we know them. Can anybody here point me towards a piece of gaming technology that has come out in the last twenty years that has fundamentally changed the way we play games? From what I can see, we still sit on a couch with a TV, a console, and a game controller to play games. For PC gamers, we either do the previous via Steamlink or we sit at a desk with a keyboard and mouse infront of a TV/monitor. Throughout the twenty year period we have seen a lot of new technology seeking to change the way we game, but not one has been a financial success or left an irreversible change on how we game. Or am I wrong?

Why do we assume VR will be the second coming? It has yet to prove otherwise with its high price point, lack of games, and the fact that the industry doesn't know which one to back, or if they should back any at all?

Again, I emphasise the fact that I find the technology impressive and I would love to play Dying Light 2, etc with a headset, but beyond hopes and dreams we only have a history of 'game changers' promising 'paradigm shifts', with the likes of Kinect/PSMove and Wii, etc., to suggest nothing has really changed.

Dyr

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Whenever I hear people say VR is going to be the next big thing I can't help but think of the people who were falling over each other to get the last Nintnendo Wii before Christmas, or the people who were wetting themselves over the Kinect and zealously sure that it would change the way we play games and get us up off the couch. Or the people who rushed out to buy 3D TVs, fully sure that it was the next wave and everything from Coronation Street to Premier League football would be all 3D, all the time.

I don't remember anyone getting excited about these geegaws and gimcracks other than those who had bought into the manufacturers hype.

They were all attemtps to shoehorn 3D interaction into an established 2D interface. 3D interaction with a 3D interface changes the game entirely.

Maximus Alexander

Bambi wrote: »

I don't remember anyone getting excited about these geegaws and gimcracks other than those who had bought into the manufacturers hype.

They were all attemtps to shoehorn 3D interaction into an established 2D interface. 3D interaction with a 3D interface changes the game entirely.

Izakly

Zillah

There's nothing rational about ranking VR with previous gimmicks like the Wii remote or Kinect. Those were gimmicks, and were obviously gimmicks from day 1. I wasn't excited for those and I won't take responsibility for the people who were.

Modern VR is so much more impressive and ground-breaking, and anyone that tries it, gamer or not, is blown away. I think it's here to stay because of its own qualities, not because I'm jumping on a hype train.

I don't know why anyone keeps repeating the line that there are no games for it. The Rift is bundled with two fully fledged built-for-VR games out of the box. We're months before release and there are already tons of games - more are coming, soon. The Vive is backed by Valve, the grand daddy of PC gaming content - if you think they're going to have any difficulty producing content for their headset you don't know Valve.

Falthyron

Zillah wrote: »

There's nothing rational about ranking VR with previous gimmicks like the Wii remote or Kinect. Those were gimmicks, and were obviously gimmicks from day 1. I wasn't excited for those and I won't take responsibility for the people who were.

Until it is mainstream, Oculus/VR is a novelty only available to those who can afford both the device, and the PC capable of running it. That is pretty much the very definition of a 'gimmick'. Therefore, it is completely rational to challenge its position and speculate as to its success.

The Kinect was not marketed as a 'gimmick' from Day One. Show me a piece of marketing or advertising where Microsoft described their new technology as a gimmick. It was designed to be much more than that. All of a sudden, you wouldn't need a controller to navigate the Xbox UI, to play movies, watch videos, listen to music, and (as was the emphasis) most importantly - play games in a completely different manner or at the very least, use it as a complement to the Xbox controller.

The Wii controller itself spurred on technological innovations such as Kinect and the PSMove. It made competitors consider innovating the I/O device and invest millions into the R+D and marketing of these devices. If these are gimmicks, then until general release and widespread adoption (on par with Kinect/PSMove) VR can too be considered a gimmick.

jumbobreakfast

Falthyron wrote: »

I would love to play Dying Light 2, etc with a headset

Lol, I give up, you couldn't have picked a worse game for nausea in VR.

But be fair you are right to be sceptical at this early stage and content is the most important thing. If you don't like the content then stick to the traditional games that are limited by their display and control medium. The movement limitations in VR are a small price to pay for the immersion you get and game devs have already come up with ways around it and they will continue to do so.

Falthyron

jumbobreakfast wrote: »

Lol, I give up, you couldn't have picked a worse game for nausea in VR.

Its all or nothing for me. I want to feel as if I am climbing a bell tower and when I look down I am hit with vertigo. Isn't that what we are aiming for, after all; realism and immersion? Most people would feel nauseous if they were clinging on for dear life at 120 feet off the ground.

Besides, we have yet to have a properly developed FPS game of a similar nature to Dying Light/Battlefield and played it for more than two hours to see what kind of effects will be felt. And, whether or not these effects would eventually subside as the brain adapts to movement and motion when wearing the headset.

I still remember playing Portal for the first time when it was released in the Orange Box. After an hour or two, I had a headache and my stomach felt rough due to the fast movement, rotating angles, and speed going through portals upside down, etc. But, it didn't take me long to get used to it. Perhaps VR will be the same? Sick as a dog for a few days, but eventually something clicks and the brain gets used to the illusion - that is one of my other main concerns. Maybe the novelty will wear off and the illusion won't be as refreshing or unique after a while?

Dyr

Falthyron wrote: »

Until it is mainstream, Oculus/VR is a novelty only available to those who can afford both the device, and the PC capable of running it. That is pretty much the very definition of a 'gimmick'.

Nope, not even close to the definition of a gimmick. A gimmick would be a free TF2 hat with every HTC Vive

Falthyron

Bambi wrote: »

Nope, not even close to the definition of a gimmick. A gimmick would be a free TF2 hat with every HTC Vive

What about a free Morpheus with every PS4? :P A gimmick can be viewed as superfluous, not necessary, not obligatory, not essential. I can still play Job Simulator from start to finish without a VR headset, likewise, I could play it in its entirety with a controller or a mouse and keyboard - the outcome is still the same.

Zillah

Falthyron wrote: »

Until it is mainstream, Oculus/VR is a novelty only available to those who can afford both the device, and the PC capable of running it. That is pretty much the very definition of a 'gimmick'.

No, what you're describing is a niche or luxury market. A gimmick is something trivial or superficial that has been overblown in importance. If VR was gaining attention through marketing and ad campaigns while being a boring or silly piece of technology it would be a gimmick, but it's not. It's gaining attention because everyone that tries it has their mind blown and sings its praises for giving an experience they couldn't have gotten anywhere else.

(And on the luxury market point: a huge percentage of gamers already have a PC at or close to the Oculus spec - it is not nearly so unreasonable a requirement as many think. GTX970 is the single most common graphics card according to Steam stats)

The Kinect was not marketed as a 'gimmick' from Day One. Show me a piece of marketing or advertising where Microsoft described their new technology as a gimmick. It was designed to be much more than that. All of a sudden, you wouldn't need a controller to navigate the Xbox UI, to play movies, watch videos, listen to music, and (as was the emphasis) most importantly - play games in a completely different manner or at the very least, use it as a complement to the Xbox controller.

I couldn't care less what Microsoft marketed it as? Kinect is a gimmick because it's an uninteresting piece of technology that was massively oversold. No one ever came out of a Kinect demo with their hands shaking because it was such a unique experience, they frequently do with VR.

"I've been disappointed before by a thing, therefore this thing will fail" is a fallacy. It is an argument that can be made literally every time someone tries to do something new. Each thing needs to be judged on its own merits. Dismissing VR because previous (unrelated) gaming tech has failed isn't rational.

jumbobreakfast

Your brain won't adjust, there is a much more physical connection to the VR world then when staring at a screen. Some people could manage a few hours of half life in VR but those people are rare.

You're in luck when it comes to climbing games, it seems some game devs had the same idea as you:

The Climb http://www.theclimbgame.com/

There's no parkour or running around like in dying light but that's to be expected in VR.

Falthyron

Zillah wrote: »

It's gaining attention because everyone that tries it has their mind blown and sings its praises for giving an experience they couldn't have gotten anywhere else.

My issue is not the experience, I am talking about the longevity and practicalities of the device. And if 'everyone' is loving it, then why haven't the big developers announced anything for the VR platform? Activision/Blizzard/EA/UbiSoft? Surely they would want some of that pre-determined financial success pie?

(And on the luxury market point: a huge percentage of gamers already have a PC at or close to the Oculus spec - it is not nearly so unreasonable a requirement as many think. GTX970 is the single most common graphics card according to Steam stats)

You are reading those stats incorrectly. The 970 has had the largest increase in use in January 2016 based on those who opted to do the survey. Besides, 4% of 125+ million users isn't a large number.

I couldn't care less what Microsoft marketed it as? Kinect is a gimmick because it's an uninteresting piece of technology that was massively oversold. No one ever came out of a Kinect demo with their hands shaking because it was such a unique experience, they frequently do with VR.

Again, this is entirely subjective on your part. 'Uninteresting'? There was a lot of interest over Kinect and PSMove when they were announced. People found it very interesting and went out and bought the product in their millions. 'Hands shaking'? If that was the case, then I reckon that isn't healthy and a doctor would probably advise them to not repeat the experience. Ok, an exaggeration, but in no way beyond your exaggeration.

"I've been disappointed before by a thing, therefore this thing will fail" is a fallacy. It is an argument that can be made literally every time someone tries to do something new. Each thing needs to be judged on its own merits. Dismissing VR because previous (unrelated) gaming tech has failed isn't rational.

Unfortunately, people like yourself are describing the product as a game changer, revolutionary, etc. It is only natural then to compare these descriptors with other pieces of technology that were also described as such. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/business/24kinect.html

As I have said already, the technology is very impressive, but I am challenging the blind faith, the religious zealotry befitting a demi-god, that has been used to defend a product nobody yet owns. Again, I would love (despite others disagreeing with me ) a Dying Light game with VR, but I am going to question the viability of the technology when so many similar technologies promised the same and failed. In fact, it is only rational to question things and challenge potential weaknesses, especially when technology of a similar nature and similar marketing hype came before it.

Even VR developers are making comparisons: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/microsoft-taking-its-time-with-hololens-to-avoid-k/1100-6434948/?ftag=GSS-05-10aaa0b

Zillah

Alright grandad, enjoy your monoscopic gaming experience, join us in the future when you feel like it

Jerichoholic

You can play Dying Light right now in VR.

Falthyron

Zillah wrote: »

Alright grandad, enjoy your monoscopic gaming experience, join us in the future when you feel like it

You played the 'PewDiePie' defence. I lose.

Doge

*yawn*

jumbobreakfast

Jerichoholic wrote: »

You can play Dying Light right now in VR.

yes but http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/02/virtual-letdown-dying-light-shows-the-difficulties-of-first-person-vr/

Dyr

Zillah wrote: »

Alright grandad, enjoy your monoscopic gaming experience, join us in the future when you feel like it

"My rig get 60 frames to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!" :pac:

but srsly folks Doom and Dying Light ports to VR? That's your problem right there, missing the point

TerrorFirmer

Unless someone is blind in one eye you couldn't come out a Rift demo unconvinced that it forms a vital part of the future of games. Comparing it to the Kinect is just silly - the Kinect always just a novelty more than a game-changer, regardless of what way it was marketed.

And there's nothing wrong with novelty, either, it sells millions of goods daily and has it's place - but VR can't be described a novelty. It has to be experienced to be truly understood.

For me personally it's by far the greatest leap forward I can remember in terms of gaming tech. The only commerical FPS game I've played in the Oculus apart from the tech demos is Quake2VR and Alien Isolation - both an incredible experience!

I showed the DK2 to my parents and they were left pretty shaken to be fair, to them video games even in 2016 are 'Super Mario' and 'Sonic' - they couldn't believe that this kind of technology even exists. My mother was actually screaming on a rollercoaster....sitting in a chair in front of the fire.

As I have said already, the technology is very impressive, but I am challenging the blind faith, the religious zealotry befitting a demi-god, that has been used to defend a product nobody yet owns.

You do realise there has been the Oculus Rift DK1 and DK2 models released and thousands upon thousands of people worldwide already own the developer versions? What we're waiting for now is the final consumer release but the tech has been out in the open market for a long time now. There is no 'blind faith' here, I don't think you seem to actually realise where we are at with the tech.

Plenty of people here have owned both, I only sold my DK2 to put towards the consumer release.

Maybe the novelty will wear off and the illusion won't be as refreshing or unique after a while?

Only someone who has never tried the Rift or had very limited experience would say this. I don't mean that in a condescending manner but it is exactly true. You're probably more thinking of '3D' as opposed to VR - pretty much the same as confusing a bi-plane and a concorde, a black and white portable TV with a 50" 4K TV.

Huge money won't be put into AAA VR titles for a while as the development cost would be huge and for a time, there won't be the financial incentive to do so.

Dyr

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Huge money won't be put into AAA VR titles for a while as the development cost would be huge and for a time, there won't be the financial incentive to do so.

I think the other thing is the big companies know where they stand with the current environment in terms of game structures, most of the genre models have been around and refined since the 80's-90s.

VR is a whole new paradigm and they're going to have to figure out what models work before they pump megabucks into developing them.

Falthyron

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Unless someone is blind in one eye you couldn't come out a Rift demo unconvinced that it forms a vital part of the future of games. Comparing it to the Kinect is just silly - the Kinect always just a novelty more than a game-changer, regardless of what way it was marketed.

And there's nothing wrong with novelty, either, it sells millions of goods daily and has it's place - but VR can't be described a novelty. It has to be experienced to be truly understood.

For me personally it's by far the greatest leap forward I can remember in terms of gaming tech. The only commerical FPS game I've played in the Oculus apart from the tech demos is Quake2VR and Alien Isolation - both an incredible experience!

I showed the DK2 to my parents and they were left pretty shaken to be fair, to them video games even in 2016 are 'Super Mario' and 'Sonic' - they couldn't believe that this kind of technology even exists. My mother was actually screaming on a rollercoaster....sitting in a chair in front of the fire.





You do realise there has been the Oculus Rift DK1 and DK2 models released and thousands upon thousands of people worldwide already own the developer versions? What we're waiting for now is the final consumer release but the tech has been out in the open market for a long time now. There is no 'blind faith' here, I don't think you seem to actually realise where we are at with the tech.

Plenty of people here have owned both, I only sold my DK2 to put towards the consumer release.



Only someone who has never tried the Rift or had very limited experience would say this. I don't mean that in a condescending manner but it is exactly true. You're probably more thinking of '3D' as opposed to VR - pretty much the same as confusing a bi-plane and a concorde, a black and white portable TV with a 50" 4K TV.

Huge money won't be put into AAA VR titles for a while as the development cost would be huge and for a time, there won't be the financial incentive to do so.

Do you see any flaws with VR? Any at all? Or do you believe that in 5 to 10 years we will all be sitting around with a headset on and that will be the primary method for consuming media?

The Kinect could have worked had it been given a strong line up of developers with solid franchises backing it up. I am simply posing the question, what is so different about VR, as it certainly appears to me that there is no strong line up for launch of VR. It has a line up on par with PSMOVE and Kinect.

I get that there are people here who are so deeply entrenched with wanting a product, but there is a stark difference between wanting a product to be successful and evaluating it's merits and costs. There are people who bought 3D TVs, Kinects, etc., believing that was the way forward. The new way to consume and interact with media, but they have failed. Just because you will VR to success doesn't mean it will be.

Now, if you want to analyse that success by breaking down target markets then that is a more viable approach. The VR market for the foreseeable future is for the enthusiast. Those who can afford to buy it and the PC to run it. It is not within the limit of those who play FIFA and CoD every Christmas. And yet that is where the big money is to be made. Oculus, right now, won't make big money due to its high price point and the system requirements. However, it will sell to a niche group of gamers, such as those who would hook it up to their veins if they could. If the money makers (CoD, et al) don't develop for it because it would be developing for a marginal portion of the gaming market, how do you expect demand to rise? There has to be a REASON to buy one. There has to be a piece of software (preferably a few) to lure the money makers in. When you attract that audience, sales go up, demand rises, and it creates some momentum for big developers to get on board. Selling 'the experience' is not enough if the games are ****e. Yeah, it was great putting on DK1 and moving around, looking around, but I want a reason other than an illusion to make me keep the thing on.

Right now that reason is not there. Yes, I could pay full whack and enjoy the tech demos and other minor titles that will come on launch but there isn't a single game that makes me want to have it now. And there hasn't been one announced. Why should people pay full whack now on a hope or a belief that 'if you build it, they will come'? There quite simple is no proof right now. People thought the Kinect was a game changer and couldn't wait to interact with Milo...look how that turned out. And yes, it is perfectly rational to compare two pieces of technology described as game changers.

As I said already, I get that there are people here who want it to succeed as if their very life depends on it, and you will it on with every moment anticipating it's release, but to do so blindly is irrational. Nothing is too big and important to not collapse. I hope it succeeds, I really do, but nobody here has given me a reason as to suggest this will be as crucial to gaming as a graphics card from now until the end of time. And although my own experience with the DK1 has been limited, my time with it was marked with interest and excitement, but caution.

Skerries

Falthyron wrote: »

You played the 'PewDiePie' defence. I lose.

you can counter with the Chewbacca defence

Dyr

Falthyron wrote: »

Do you see any flaws with VR? Any at all? Or do you believe that in 5 to 10 years we will all be sitting around with a headset on and that will be the primary method for consuming media?

.

Consuming media? Primary method for gaming will be VR.

Comparing VR to wand controllers is ignorance, either willful or plain vanilla ignorance. It's a bit like claiming video calls will never take off because walkie- talkies didn't

ondafly

I was at Cisco Live Berlin last week - and for the first time ever I got to try the Oculus rift - it was the DK1 and from the minute I put the headset on I was sold. The demo I was shown was more along the lines of video conferencing or shared virtual work-spaces, but it was enough to have me hooked.

The demo was pretty basic, initially it had you standing in an office, but when the demonstrator moved you forward (you didn't have a controller) the feeling of your head moving in space but your body not following was surreal. They gave me a few google cardboards, which I've been playing with over the weekend, and they are themselves fantastic. I need my next hit of VR

I bought a 980ti last year - so should be in good stead hardware wise, I just need to pick the right headset for me.

Jerichoholic

Going from DK1 to what's about to be unleashed will be like going from Elite on C64 to Elite: Dangerous.

Zillah

Falthyron wrote: »

I hope it succeeds, I really do, but nobody here has given me a reason as to suggest this will be as crucial to gaming as a graphics card from now until the end of time.

Not a claim anyone has made.

No one is saying they're betting their life savings on VR - we're just saying that it is a big and exciting-enough leap forward in gaming technology to a huge success. Kinect and Wii remotes didn't add anywhere near anything so unique to the experience - no amount of comparisons and false equivalences will change that. You don't seem to grasp the difference between Microsoft - the manufacturer of the product - saying that the Kinect is the next big thing in their advertising, and the impartial reviewers, journalists, and average Joes saying VR is the next big thing - not because of marketing but because of the incredible experience it provides. That's the key difference, that's why we're excited.

FAILSAFE 00

Falthyron wrote: »

Do you see any flaws with VR? Any at all? Or do you believe that in 5 to 10 years we will all be sitting around with a headset on and that will be the primary method for consuming media?

The Kinect could have worked had it been given a strong line up of developers with solid franchises backing it up. I am simply posing the question, what is so different about VR, as it certainly appears to me that there is no strong line up for launch of VR. It has a line up on par with PSMOVE and Kinect.

I get that there are people here who are so deeply entrenched with wanting a product, but there is a stark difference between wanting a product to be successful and evaluating it's merits and costs. There are people who bought 3D TVs, Kinects, etc., believing that was the way forward. The new way to consume and interact with media, but they have failed. Just because you will VR to success doesn't mean it will be.

Now, if you want to analyse that success by breaking down target markets then that is a more viable approach. The VR market for the foreseeable future is for the enthusiast. Those who can afford to buy it and the PC to run it. It is not within the limit of those who play FIFA and CoD every Christmas. And yet that is where the big money is to be made. Oculus, right now, won't make big money due to its high price point and the system requirements. However, it will sell to a niche group of gamers, such as those who would hook it up to their veins if they could. If the money makers (CoD, et al) don't develop for it because it would be developing for a marginal portion of the gaming market, how do you expect demand to rise? There has to be a REASON to buy one. There has to be a piece of software (preferably a few) to lure the money makers in. When you attract that audience, sales go up, demand rises, and it creates some momentum for big developers to get on board. Selling 'the experience' is not enough if the games are ****e. Yeah, it was great putting on DK1 and moving around, looking around, but I want a reason other than an illusion to make me keep the thing on.

Right now that reason is not there. Yes, I could pay full whack and enjoy the tech demos and other minor titles that will come on launch but there isn't a single game that makes me want to have it now. And there hasn't been one announced. Why should people pay full whack now on a hope or a belief that 'if you build it, they will come'? There quite simple is no proof right now. People thought the Kinect was a game changer and couldn't wait to interact with Milo...look how that turned out. And yes, it is perfectly rational to compare two pieces of technology described as game changers.

As I said already, I get that there are people here who want it to succeed as if their very life depends on it, and you will it on with every moment anticipating it's release, but to do so blindly is irrational. Nothing is too big and important to not collapse. I hope it succeeds, I really do, but nobody here has given me a reason as to suggest this will be as crucial to gaming as a graphics card from now until the end of time. And although my own experience with the DK1 has been limited, my time with it was marked with interest and excitement, but caution.

Comparing VR to a Kinect and Nintendo hardware is hilarious. You'll need better examples to bolster your argument that VR will not succeed.

MarkAnthony

Falthyron wrote: »

<snip to keep it breif>

As I said already, I get that there are people here who want it to succeed as if their very life depends on it, and you will it on with every moment anticipating it's release, but to do so blindly is irrational. Nothing is too big and important to not collapse. I hope it succeeds, I really do, but nobody here has given me a reason as to suggest this will be as crucial to gaming as a graphics card from now until the end of time. And although my own experience with the DK1 has been limited, my time with it was marked with interest and excitement, but caution.

While I agree it's a niche product I disagree with two of your points. Firstly the Kinect. I was still working in the games industry at that point. It was never seen as anything other than a novelty. The problem with a console release is it's always going to hobbled.

Secondly there are loads of reasons to have a VR headset. They're not that expensive in comparison to what many of us spend on displays. Many of us who have had multiple displays would actually be saving money!

Other reasons are the gaming experiance on PC. For me flight simualtion, both fantasy (Eilte/Star Citizen) and reality (lol). In comparision to some of the set ups this is a massive leap forward and a huge reduction in price.

The PC indistry always innovate, the consoles immitate and bring it to the masses. You're right in relation to were the profit comes from, but the product has to start somewhere.