Oculus Rift

Falthyron

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

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

How about a lack of games from the big developers at launch and the foreseeable future?

MarkAnthony

Falthyron wrote: »

How about a lack of games from the big developers at launch and the foreseeable future?

The big developers are always slow to innovate for the reasons you've highlighted. It's the smaller companies you need to keep an eye on. Big games companies where once little games companies that jumped on the right bandwagon.

Falthyron

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The big developers are always slow to innovate for the reasons you've highlighted. It's the smaller companies you need to keep an eye on. Big games companies where once little games companies that jumped on the right bandwagon.

Quite right and all I am simply doing is highlighting that this is a scenario we have been in before. People grew concerned when there were little to no major games at launch for the Kinect/PS Move. As I have already said, software drives hardware. If VR is to break into the masses it needs to be affordable, attainable, and give very good reasons to distinguish itself from the 'normal version' of a big well established franchise game (i.e. the non VR version).

It is quite interesting to note that nobody here has actually listed any faults or possible problems with VR. Why is nobody questioning this? Or have Oculus/Valve and Sony created flawless devices? Hell, if this was a discussion about next gen consoles people would be ripping them apart arguing over which runs at 1080p and 60fps, or some other features that differ.

Falthyron

MarkAnthony wrote: »

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.

Finally some objective and critical thinking about this, instead of people droning on about 'the experience'. There won't be an 'experience' if the device isn't a financial success.

MarkAnthony

To be fair there's plenty of discussion of the drawbacks in the forgoing 60 pages!

Zillah

Falthyron wrote: »

How about a lack of games from the big developers at launch and the foreseeable future?

There is no lack of games. Both of the major headsets are coming bundled with two different games for free. There are hundreds of different VR experiences available right now, and dozens of big, exciting games coming very soon.

Adrift is like gravity in space.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/conferences/e3-2015/14040-ADRIFT-Preview#&gid=gallery_4240&pid=1

Arizona Sunshine, zombie shooter.
http://www.roadtovr.com/arizona-sunshine-room-scale-zombie-shooter-htc-vive-teased-release-later-year/

Hover Junkers, handheld shooter scifi game.
http://uploadvr.com/hover-junkers-preview/

Budget Cuts, high-tech stealth/ninja assassin game.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/13/10760070/budget-cuts-htc-valve-vive-vr-stealth-game

I could go on. Oculus themselves have said "dozens of full-length, AAA games designed for VR are coming to Rift, with more than 100 titles available by the end of 2016…"

You honestly sound like you just haven't looked into what is or will be available. A huge franchise like COD doing a VR game would be great, but it's the icing on the cake, it's not needed for the medium to survive the first couple of years.

That said, you know they're doing Minecraft VR? I think that's pretty big. Did that game do well? I think I heard it mentioned before.

Dyr

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Other reasons are the gaming experiance on PC. For me flight simualtion, both fantasy (Eilte/Star Citizen) and reality (lol). I

Team Fusion have said today that oculus support is now 90% certain for their next Il2:COD patch

MarkAnthony

Bambi wrote: »

Team Fusion have said today that oculus support is now 90% certain for their next Il2:COD patch

I'm sure ARMA 3 will be awesome too!

drunkmonkey

Falthyron wrote: »

How about a lack of games from the big developers at launch and the foreseeable future?

I've a set of x55 controllers and the dk2, if they fine tune war thunder enough that's enough to keep me entertained for years, you never get tired of virtual dogfights, only game that makes me proper woozy from pulling aerial stunts to save my ass been shot off.
There's plenty of stuff there already, just needs to be made bette, even the jump in screen quality should make a huge difference.

Zillah

I would pay serious money for a Battlestar Galactica singleplayer campaign VR game. Zooming around in a Viper while the Galactica pours flak into space - heaven.

ScumLord

lmimmfn wrote: »

Price has been leaked early $799 -
http://uploadvr.com/htc-vive-is-799/

That's a good price for whats in the box. It makes the decision harder for me.

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?

Any flaws in VR are teething problems at this stage. It's pretty new technology. But when I see the price it makes me think this can become a very accessible technology in the future. All you have to do is look at the price people will pay for a new type of TV (big plasmas were €20,000 back in the day) and how quickly those prices dropped with greater uptake. VR has the potential to cheaper than a mid range TV and for the benefits you get it's well worth the money. In 5-10 years from now VR could be as accessible as cheap tv sets in Lidl.

I don't see headsets taking over from monitors. Monitors still give quick and easy access to multiple people. But there is a place for VR that goes beyond niche. I have a very niche need, my hobby is sim racing (and I see sim racing as a hobby separate from gaming), VR will probably become essential to that experience as time goes on.

But VR has huge potential in CAD, a designer could literally build a building to scale right in front of his eyes using a VR headset. Car designers could probably design a part and test it in VR, hold it in their VR hands, get input and testing from other people. It's design potential will keep pushing VR development for the next decade all on it's own.

I think there's the potential for VR experiences on a larger scale. So rather than just having VR at home you could go to a VR venue and be running around warehouses thinking you're on a spaceship fighting aliens with your friends.

The thing is oculus have been promoting the VR experience and showing it to people for the past few years. Everyone has been thinking about the potential and trialing dev kits for a while now, the ideas and concepts are just waiting for the hardware is gives VR and advantage over alternative products that have flopped due to lack of interest..

I think in 10 years VR and reality will have merged to a certain extent. VR/AR will just be a part of our experience of the real world. We'll probably have glasses that overlay a virtual reality over reality and most devices as we know them may become a bit redundant. IE: rather than answering a phone call, the person contacting you will appear beside you (through your glasses) and you can have a chat face to face.

The Randy Riverbeast

Falthyron wrote: »

Quite right and all I am simply doing is highlighting that this is a scenario we have been in before. People grew concerned when there were little to no major games at launch for the Kinect/PS Move. As I have already said, software drives hardware. If VR is to break into the masses it needs to be affordable, attainable, and give very good reasons to distinguish itself from the 'normal version' of a big well established franchise game (i.e. the non VR version).

It is quite interesting to note that nobody here has actually listed any faults or possible problems with VR. Why is nobody questioning this? Or have Oculus/Valve and Sony created flawless devices? Hell, if this was a discussion about next gen consoles people would be ripping them apart arguing over which runs at 1080p and 60fps, or some other features that differ.

Movement is a well known flaw. Nobody is saying that its perfect but it is a lot higher up than the kinect.

Thargor

Falthyron wrote: »

Finally some objective and critical thinking about this, instead of people droning on about 'the experience'. There won't be an 'experience' if the device isn't a financial success.

Oh yeah finally :rolleyes:

Doge

Falthyron wrote: »

Finally some objective and critical thinking about this, instead of people droning on about 'the experience'. There won't be an 'experience' if the device isn't a financial success.

You'd be surprised with the rise of indie and home developers.

There will always be content no matter how bad it crashes, just not from the big studios.

Look at the Nintendo Virtual Boy for instance, people are STILL making homebrew content for it for crying out loud!
And we're talking about a truly gimmicky VR system that crashed and burned 20 years ago! :eek:

We live in crazy, exciting times where even the nichest of products have gained a substantial following and a scene!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW8lPCNEFGc

FAILSAFE 00

Falthyron wrote: »

Quite right and all I am simply doing is highlighting that this is a scenario we have been in before. People grew concerned when there were little to no major games at launch for the Kinect/PS Move.

The Xbox Kinect and PS Move isn't helping your argument. You need a much more relevant example.

VR will without a doubt be a massive success. We are not talking about one company saying this is a revolutionary product. At this stage VR has become a movement with many companies invested heavily in its success. Billions have been invested collectively in VR in the last 5 years alone. Here are just some of the companies working on VR - HTC, Facebook/Oculus, Sony, Microsoft, Samsung, Qualcomm, Google, Siemens, Nokia, Intel, and IBM.

Falthyron wrote: »

It is quite interesting to note that nobody here has actually listed any faults or possible problems with VR....

Its interesting to note that you haven't read through the thread :pac:

Falthyron

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

The Xbox Kinect and PS Move isn't helping your argument. You need a much more relevant example.

It is the closest example to technology that promised to change things, but failed. Perhaps you could suggest a piece of technology by comparison that has been a complete success in how people interact with games/media? My example doesn't suit the VR crowd, even though it is valid. Again, technology introduced to change how people play games - that very description can be used for VR headsets, can it not?

Its interesting to note that you haven't read through the thread :pac:

I was referring to people I was (at the time) debating with on the issue of the viability and longevity of VR.

I am glad someone has mentioned a problem with VR (movement). Is nobody concerned about exclusivity deals done between developers and particular VR manufacturers? We have exclusivity deals done with games and consoles, is it really beyond the realm of possibility that some devs might only endorse one VR product, forcing consumers to have to buy that one in order to play the game in a VR mode?

FAILSAFE 00

Falthyron wrote: »

It is the closest example to technology that promised to change things, but failed. Perhaps you could suggest a piece of technology by comparison that has been a complete success in how people interact with games/media? My example doesn't suit the VR crowd, even though it is valid. Again, technology introduced to change how people play games - that very description can be used for VR headsets, can it not?

Who promised??
I never even heard or read Xbox say that the Kinect was revolutionary and would change the way we game. There were just a tonne of game journalists speculating about what the Kinect could do. It was just an interesting device that has good technical capabilities. Not one person I know bought an Xbox One thinking the Kinect would change how we gamed :rolleyes:

Falthyron

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Who promised??
I never even heard or read Xbox say that the Kinect was revolutionary and would change the way we game. There were just a tonne of game journalists speculating about what the Kinect could do. It was just an interesting device that has good technical capabilities. Not one person I know bought an Xbox One thinking the Kinect would change how we gamed :rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/business/24kinect.html

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/11/features/the-game-changer

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/microsoft-looks-to-kinect-as-game-changer/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/nov/08/kinect-microsoft-produced-game-changer

Microsoft very much marketing and advertising their product as a game changer. Sure, they can say what they want - it doesn't make it so. But so can Oculus/Valve/Sony, etc.

TerrorFirmer

Why are you so fixated on marketing spiel? The Kinect was never seen a game-changer by anyone really, that's how it was pushed by Microsoft, and Sony as well. They wanted to encourage greater interactivity but it was never seen as anything other than a novelty, albeit a potentially promising one.

VR is fundamentally different. User feedback is incredibly strong, industry feedback is overwhelmingly strong, and dozens of companies are investing colossal sums of money.

Your argument seems to be that if it doesn't gain a massive hold in the market and become the 'new' thing, then it is a failure. Nobody here is arguing that in a few years the entire way in which we all consume our media, play our games, etc will be totally changed as you're implying. Blu-Ray didn't kill DVD. Intel haven't killed AMD. TV didn't kill the radio. All these things can co-exist happily.

VR is here to stay, and arguably it's applications in other areas are of even greater significance. A couple can walk through their dream house before the first block is laid. A person can meet their friends in the cinema to watch a movie no matter where on this earth they currently reside. Etc.

Why we're comparing this to a camera that allows you to chop fruit on screen and wave your arms about instead of using a controller is beyond me.

TerrorFirmer

Falthyron wrote: »

Microsoft very much marketing and advertising their product as a game changer. Sure, they can say what they want - it doesn't make it so. But so can Oculus/Valve/Sony, etc.

The huge difference that you're conveniently ignoring is that those who have used the Rift, be they consumers or industry professionals, are also calling it a 'game-changer'.

Of course Microsoft said that. What else would they say? "We're developing a new bit of hardware that's essentially our rush to capitalize on the market the Wii captured. It won't be for everyone, probably mostly children or the lads after a few cans, and it's not going to set the world on fire but we're happy with it."

The Randy Riverbeast

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

Steam have released a method of testing your computer. I only have a R9 280 so had a few points with 88 FPS but it looks like it would manage ok.

FAILSAFE 00

Falthyron wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/business/24kinect.html

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/11/features/the-game-changer

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/microsoft-looks-to-kinect-as-game-changer/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/nov/08/kinect-microsoft-produced-game-changer

Microsoft very much marketing and advertising their product as a game changer. Sure, they can say what they want - it doesn't make it so. But so can Oculus/Valve/Sony, etc.

Thats all journalists posing the question "Is it a game changer..."
Outside of the usual PR BS for a company talking about their product no gamers expected the Kinect to be a revolutionary game changer. That just never happened. We were also never promised that would be the case.

Dyr

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

Steam have released a method of testing your computer. I only have a R9 280 so had a few points with 88 FPS but it looks like it would manage ok.

oddly enough its quite happy with my i5 2500k

TerrorFirmer

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

Steam have released a method of testing your computer. I only have a R9 280 so had a few points with 88 FPS but it looks like it would manage ok.

Fidelity - very high
Frames below 90fps - 0 (0%)
Frames CPU bound - 0 (0%)

:cool:

Thargor

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

Steam have released a method of testing your computer. I only have a R9 280 so had a few points with 88 FPS but it looks like it would manage ok.

Flying colours for my gaming laptop, well a mm or two into the green zone anyway, still worried about that HDMI thing where laptops dont handle it like desktops though.

Falthyron

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Thats all journalists posing the question "Is it a game changer..."
Outside of the usual PR BS for a company talking about their product no gamers expected the Kinect to be a revolutionary game changer. That just never happened. We were also never promised that would be the case.

And yet the internet was inundated with forum debates, comment sections, and flame wars as to which device (Kinect or MOVE) was better.

Personally, I find the level of angst against me astonishing. For simply asking important questions about diversification, exclusives, examples from past experiences, and challenging potential issues associated with the technology itself, almost everyone on here in the last 5 pages of this thread has shut me down. Despite saying I hope the technology succeeds and how I find it fascinating and that I would love to play a Dying Light 2 or Titanfall 2 with a VR headset, people have taken issue with me challenging the technology.

Nobody has tackled the issue over exclusives and how this might affect consumers, how it might diversify gamers even further beyond the standard Xbox/PC/PS4 categories or given me an example of a new piece of technology that has changed gaming and been a resounding success on par with how VR is expected to be received. These are important issues that are deliberately being ignored or people don't like where the answer might lead them. If Oculus truly had big AAA developers working on games, we would have heard something by now. Yet, most people here seem to just have faith that everything will fall into place.

If Oculus pay Activision-Blizzard a large sum of money to ensure their VR headset is the only supported VR headset on PC, (not too dissimilar to Sony paying Activision for the rights to COD expansions one month before all other consoles) then surely that is something that could impact consumers?

If people aren't asking the hard questions, then I can only assume they don't want the answers. I am not saying I have the answers, I am just asking questions. The only other alternative is that people unwilling to accept that there could be serious issues with VR products must be feeling €700 lighter in their pockets and need to justify splashing out now instead of waiting and seeing - just like the major developers.

If you were/are offended by me challenging unproven, untested, and (at present) technology which has yet to attract the heavy-hitting developers, then I apologise. I wish you well in a couple of weeks when the Oculus launches and you can finally achieve absolute immersion with Job Simulator

Everything can fail. The Dreamcast showed us that.

Thargor

Falthyron wrote: »

And yet the internet was inundated with forum debates, comment sections, and flame wars as to which device (Kinect or MOVE) was better.

Personally, I find the level of angst against me astonishing.

What a load of waffle. Go read the thread and stop embarrassing yourself.

Falthyron

Thargor wrote: »

What a load of waffle. Go read the thread and stop embarrassing yourself.

Have you paid for your Oculus Rift?

Thargor

Read the thread and find out :rolleyes:

Or just blunder in calling everyone hysterical fanboys and VR the equivalent of Microsoft Kinect, I dont really care.

Doge

The only thing that shut you down Falthyron is the poor examples and comparisons you have made in your argument.

Your posts are on the TL/DR side and you've derailed the thread somewhat voicing criticisms that have been made several times already.
It's tiring to read.
None of us claim VR will be a huge commercial success, but a lot of us who have actually tried the Rift see it as the next big thing in immersion.

How about you try out something like the Rift and get back to us?