There are people browsing this board RIGHT NOW
who haven't tried the Oculus Rift and think it's a 'gimmick' like 3D.
ah well, now then they just have to bride this and that publisher to produce a commercial AAA for it and they're golden.
Or just use it for CoD and sell it to kids on a yearly basis
>What is downscaling?
A lot of developers realise this, of course you're not going to be able to play games like Elite dangerous on a shitty rig but there are tons of games which don't tax much but look great, also older games which have gotten VR support like Half Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RehCTRrWM0
I'm all for this since it gives a reason for Nvidia and AMD to push their graphics cards.
>3D is a gimmick
>motion control is a gimmick
>3D strapped to your face with motion controls isn't a gimmick
But it's not '3D' as in the gimmicky 'in your face 3d', it takes up most of your field of vision, blows up the screen to mean that the scale of things matches IRL, and the depth is FAR greater than 3d has, comparing more to real life; seriously people need to try it because they come in with ignorant cynicism, because it's easy to assume but when you try it you'll see why it's such a big thing in technology right now and why SO many people are copying it.
Its literally stereoscopic 3D.
It works the exact same way except its even more gimmicky in that it's STRAPPED TO YOUR FUCKING FACE.
It working better than other 3D methods doesn't make it magically not a gimmick you dumb fuck.
The reason people call it a toy or a gimmick is because it won't contribute shit to games that aren't porn, walking sims or flight sims. In fact it's detrimental for anything else.
They haven't gotten the rift to the stage they want it to. Getting a DK2 or any of the others is a dumb move since they are working on one with better resolution, optics and latency with Samsung.
>literally stereoscopic 3D
"The Oculus Rift creates a stereoscopic 3D view with excellent depth, scale, and parallax. Unlike 3D on a television or in a movie, this is achieved by presenting unique and parallel images for each eye. This is the same way your eyes perceive images in the real world, creating a much more natural and comfortable experience."
It does not work the exact same way.
It's not a gimmick, this thing has already helped the military, education, even fucking cinema, if it was JUST for gaming then perhaps it would be a gimmick, but it's being applied to so many different fields which benefit greatly from it.
Stop trying so hard to be cynical.
Except this can fit a multitude of needs in the field whereas motion controls basically only do what it says on the tin, for education you could use it for school trips, teleprescence with virtual lessons, it could help explain scientifc concpets by being able to go right to a cell and explain how it works. And so much more
Who wants to wear a fucking giant thing on its head to play videogames? I mean this shit will be dead on arrival and the mass market will never fucking care. It is the ultimate escapist looser device, regular people see nothing interesting on it.
Not even the same guy. Why should anyone on a board dedicated for video games give a fuck about what the oculus did or can do for things that aren't video games? Give me a single reason.
>I care this much about aesthetics
That's why they hired Carbon Design Team(Xbox Controller) to make it aeshetically appealing, all you've seen so far are prototypes so obviously they don't care about how it's gonna look, but they've got the weight reduced MASSIVELY(DK1 was alright light) and I'm positive CV1 will look a lot better.
Occulus Rift is probably fun at conventions to try for a few minutes but it's not like anyone will unironically strap a screen to their heads at home to play their stupid video games.
>b-but my immersion
I am not just talking about aesthetics but from a regular person pov and value on being able to play videogames on VR.
It holds no fucking value for regular people. Which are the mass market here, this thing will be niche as hell.
Imagine a device came out tomorrow that had to be strapprdbto your face that did something else other than 3D.
You would be crying gimmick.
You just defend oculus isn't a gimmick because it works. Doesn't mean it's not a gimmick m8 sorry
Any anons tried dk2? I will upgrade my rig soon and think oft getting one with it, assuming the res is not shit like dk1. I dont need super deluxe HD but everyone said you could count each pixel when dk1 came around.
No really, it's just fucking stereography.
Until they can create dynamic and realistic depth of field that can somehow track your eyes; we're not going to get any better in the 3D field.
>b-but my immersion
So greentexting the primary reason why it's so great to trivialise it, so you don't have to accept that argument?
It's FULL immersion, it's the most immersive thing we've got in terms of being in a virtual world people will and have got it in their homes they've been fucking funded 2 Billion for it, because as much as you may hate facebook, it's the biggest social platform out there and they saw the potential for the next one.
so what are the requirements to make it look good?
What resolution? What framerate? Is it like running two separate displays or does the graphics card handle it well?
I want it for Star Citizen but I have a hard enough time getting 40 fps on a small monitor. It's really cool but I feel like it's just an enhancer, like headtracking
I was using the virtual boy as an example that covering your eyes isn't some revolutionary technology
And yes, I've tried the DK2; my cousin owns one and usually faps to it while playing muh Elite Dangerous
But really, 3D isn't going to get better depth wise until we can simulate depth of field similarly to an iris
>So greentexting the primary reason why it's so great to trivialise it, so you don't have to accept that argument?
I am not him, but who fucking cares about immersion in a videogame? Only nerds and tryhards. This shit will flop after the intial sales to nerds and tryhards.
Show this shit to any normal person, they will not give a single shit and forget about it by the next day.
Well, how is it NOT a gimmick? Are we going to be seeing challenging and complex games specifically designed for the Oculus Rift? Did we see some for motion controls? Fuck no.
Whatever, I still don't see it as proof that it's good or worth getting. A few billions in Silicon Valley isn't much these days.
Look, I can't prove to you that my prediction about the future is correct (even if it is) but when this shit comes out (if ever) and no one uses it just remember how wrong you were and how much smarter I am than you, kay?
>fun as fuck
See, this is how I know you're grasping.
>I was using the virtual boy as an example that covering your eyes isn't some revolutionary technology
M8, the virtual boy didn't cover shit, the screens were small and took a very small portion of your field of vision.
Resolution: 2560x1440 (Crescent Bay has this)
You can also run at lower resolution (720p, 1080p and upscale)
It's slightly more that running one display, Nvidia and AMD are tackling this.
>Show this shit to any normal person, they will not give a single shit and forget about it by the next day.
Go on fucking YouTube you idiot, nearly EVERYONE who tried it, sceptic, cynic whatever, and I mean NORMAL people, and they're blown away. Fucking old people.
>implying the OR is the only VR headset in development
>VR hits 1ms response time at 1080p
You're kinda behind, the lag has been solved, it's already reached 1440p, and will have 4k very soon.
Overall, there's only one display.
No but it's the most polished one.
Well yeah, I'm not trying to fight you. It's just that point that wasn't quite true. Lots of people think it's an amazing piece of technology.
Still, I'll buy one. It seems like fun to mess around with, even if it's just me making virtual simulations of being in a mech or whatever and nobody else supporting it.
I have, and I think it's a gimmick. A nice gimmick that will fill a very nice niche, but that's about it as far as I'm concerned.
I do hope the people supporting it like the second coming of christ understand that what they're supporting is a future where "game as experience" with very simplistic gameplay, is what they're mostly supporting if this actually hits big.
can I use it for PC or is it PS4 orny?
how the fuck am I going to get my miku porn games on a ps4?
The depth of the gameplay systems has no causal connection to being observed through a headset or not, what are you even talking about? Sure at first there'll be many virtual demos to quickly show people what the fuck it is, but you can add this to any first person game as long as you have access to the rendering part of the software.
There will be many casual games, but that's like saying you're supporting games like Madden, CoD and FIFA by buying a console. There is no inherent connection between simplistic gameplay and head mounted visual output.
It doesn't have to be a mainstream product that's accepted by the masses to not be a gimmick. I do not feel like writing a long winded response because I've done it 100 times in the past. Like I said before if anyone thinks that VR is a gimmick they do not understand the technology and its potential. Simple as that.
Edit: For further clarification here is the definition of a gimmick.
Gimmick:A trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.
I would love to hear somebody explain how the Rift/VR falls under that category. Your response talks about how well it will be received by the general public. Which has no effect on the actual technology in the Rift or the potential of VR
Pewdiepie can literally stop LPing alltogether while also using money for things like toilet paper and paper towels for the rest of his life and STILL have enough money to support himself and a family of five.
I know, I mean from one point I can understand the cynicism, Virtual Boy, 3D whatever, and I'm fairly sure that most people calling it a gimmick haven't tried it, and it's really the only time where Reddit is better for discussion /r/oculus has the developers, Palmer Luckey, all those guys and it's just so much better to actually talk about it.
Fuck I thought /v/ would be a little less ignorant.
Wait, I know the Order is running at a highly cinematic 30fps, but surely they aren't also cutting off a fourth of the screen just to look like a movie?
What am I saying, ofcourse they are.
There's your answer, CV1 will be 90HZ (Crescent Bay is 90HZ) which is the threshold for presence (feeling like you're threre)
Resolution so far is 1440p, but since they're partnered with samsung who are releasing 4K phones next year they could have 4k.
>watch footage of 'cinematic' game on my 16:10 monitor
>half the screen is black
I borrowed one from my university so I could play Elite: Dangerous over a weekend. it's pretty cool, but I wouldn't want to use it for anything other than flight sims. I tried a walking simulator and not having a fixed point of reference when you're moving around made me feel incredibly motion sick. it's also incredibly unreliable and I would absolutely hate to play anything that required any kind of precision. Maybe a first person RPG if they could find a way to make me not wanna puke? definitely not any kind of FPS or anything requiring reactions. Fuck that.
It is neat, and I recommend everybody try it out, but it is a gimmick. I returned it to the labs a week ago and I have no desire to pick one up again til they make some improvements.
No they don't shill, they just contribute to the discussion and tell it how it is, what the Oculus can and can't do, they help devs make their games better and help answer questions.
Stop trying so hard to fit in.
>The depth of the gameplay systems has no causal connection to being observed through a headset or not, what are you even talking about?
Of the audience it's going to bring. Who do you think is going to be the biggest market adopters once it hits past the technology enthusiasts ?
Non gamers. And as always, being the more numerous, they're going to be the ones the publishers service.
Oh tand there is causal connection about efficiency of §interaction wxith the UI, which will have an impact on gameplay, but we're probably too early to see the form that impact wille take.
>that's like saying you're supporting games like Madden, CoD and FIFA by buying a console.
If you're buying a console, you are supporting, say the rampant overtaking of the gamepad as a control scheme for one.
I don't believe one second the Headset will have little influence on that front.
>who haven't tried the Oculus Rift and think it's a 'gimmick' like 3D.
It is a gimmick in its curernt state, i wouldn't survive 10 minutes with that thing on.
It's a good thing they're pushing resolution and refresh rate, but it's going to be more difficult to drive that thing the higher the numbers go.
I myself have 1440p 120Hz monitor and it's hard to got 100+ fps in most games, easy in Dota 2 and CS:GO (780Ti) but the more pretty the game the more difficult to drive.
No, they don't. Reddit is a circlejerk driven by their shitty upvote culture. You can't criticize a product in a thread about it as they'll all downvote and upvote the fanboy posts. It's like posting on a fan-forum about a game and saying it's bad - there's no objective discussion to be found.
what about responsiveness? it didn't work as well for aiming as a keyboard and mouse, I don't get why you'd use one for an FPS. do you work for oculus or something?
I will try the standing thing though. I'm gonna be developing something pretty near with oculus for my final year project, so I'll have to get used to using one I guess.
I tried it at Dreamhack last winter. It was cool and I'd love to have one BUT there was one thing that none of my friends said they got.
It burned my eyes, moments after I put it on my eyes felt dry, sore and hot. It was uncomfortable as fuck.
Some anon said the brightness might have been too high or whatever and that I could probably tweak it to not do that if I had one of my own. Hopefully that's true of the consumer version.
You eyes are not your brain, they can not interpret information. If you look at a screen in front of you they'll focus on that and make it appear sharp. What is then shown on the screen is an entirely different manner.
There are a few exceptions to this rule as eyes can be tricked but generally speaking depth of field in VR has to be created artificially by overlaying the scene accordingly. This is rather hard as it would require eye tracking - when you are not focussed on something it should be more blurry than a focussed object and vice versa.
Okay; when you look at something, everything else becomes slightly blurrier, this is more extreme when looking at something close up (your finger, etc), or looking at something far away.
Without this dynamic blurring, everything looks flatter as your mind is made to process depth as a mixture of both being far or near in terms of image discrepancy between the eyes, but also in terms of how blurry it is.
The reason depth of field is so shit in games is because it doesn't track where you're looking at
So until we can get software or hardware that can replicate our iris and depth of field, 3D is going to look relatively flat.
>not knowing what depth of field effects are simulating and thinking they need to be replicated via eye tracking when using stereoscopy
you might be retarded
the eye tracking stuff people are pushing for VR is to avoid having to render an entire scene all the time, so you can produce higher quality graphics at higher framerates because you're not rendering the unseeable parts of the frame
No you can criticize it and John Carmack and Palmer frequently do so and accept that it's no way NEAR good enough, there's discussion and the shitty discussion is weeded out at least on /r/oculus
Or maybe because your brain has evolved over millions of years to correlate blurriness with depth due to the way your iris works?
>Who do you think is going to be the biggest market adopters once it hits past the technology enthusiasts ?
How? It's a fucking device that costs hundreds of dollars just to enhance your gaming experience a little bit. Non gamers won't want to spend the cash, surely.
>Oh tand there is causal connection about efficiency of §interaction wxith the UI, which will have an impact on gameplay
Yeah, you won't see as many skill based shooters, but space 4x games like the X series and the upcoming Limit Theory could use it without losing any depth. Again, there's a loose relation, but not a strict, inherent one.
>If you're buying a console, you are supporting, say the rampant overtaking of the gamepad as a control scheme for one.
Granted, but this still only partially dictates what games people make. There's still depth, though less so, in console games, and a controller easily surpasses a change in the way you observe the world in terms of effect on game design.
A controller plays differently, has different buttons and inputs. A VR device strapped to your face just changes the way you look around. Hell, in most examples of FPS shown it hasn't even changed the way you do precision aiming.
I don't think you're necessarily supporting simplistic experience games at all. There's work being done on implementing it in OpenMW, and I can see that playing just fine.
have you never used any kind of stereoscopic display with a large amount of depth? when you focus on distant objects, things in the foreground become blurry/out of focus and vice versa, just like a real scene.
You are the least intelligent man on this thread, congratulations.
One idiot ask for a proof that Oculus is not a gimmick, the other anon gives the proof, then one retarded say it's not relevant because it's not video-games - even though they got some games.
>Non gamers won't want to spend the cash, surely.
Not the guy you're talking to but I'd like to point out that there are various industry and entertainment applications for stereoscopic view - the reason mostly being precision as depth becomes visible and the surroundings are easier to keep track off. This matters in robotics, medicine and industrial scale manufacturing. In theory military also benefits but they already have own solutions.
>i'm such an oldfag u gice
You do understand that it can be a worthless toy for games while also being useful in other fields, right? Giving proof of its usefulness in other fields is completely irrelevant.
Right, but those are most likely company funded and not intended for non-gamers playing simplistic games like the guy I was responding to said.
They're also a tiny minority, compared even to the small group of "hardcore gamers".
>large amount of depth?
The problem with this is that either requires too much horizontal image separation which makes the middle-ground too skewed; or a really big display.
The Oculus Rift, while it attempts and somewhat succeeds with using a lens to create the illusion of a bigger display, it fails for the most part to create convincing depth.
The ability to generate dynamic depth of field based on eye movement will give the ability of increased depth to almost any size of screen, and will be indistinguishable from normal focusing, if implemented well enough.
VR will never be big until we can make literal Holodecks
Until then it's just a gimmick because it adds nothing to the game but an aesthetic change
>look around by moving your eyes
Yeah, which is why there is a wraparound view that simulates your normal visual range.
If you're talking about AIMING, that's a completely different story and not easily solvable.
>requires a large investment for a very particular usage that frankly won't appeal to the masses
Literally no normie would ever get a VR monitor to strap on their heads.
>most likely company funded
Yes and no. If you talk about a large multinational engineering company producing some sort of anal probe that can be guided with VR goggles then they'd obviously have their own goggles.
But we live in times of startups and people taking ideas and making their own shit. Imagine you could buy a reasonably well working VR headset and build your own anal probe and sell that - it's interesting for medium sized businesses who can not spend hundreds of millions on R&D on stereoscopic HMDs.
Affordable technology is similarly to outsourcing a fundamental principle around privatisation in capitalism and its benefits.
There was a time when people said "Why would anyone want a computer in their home?" and yet home users found ways to do awesome shit with them once they became available.
Do I really have to explain to you how eyes work? I'd figure you have some of your own. When you move your eyes your field of view moves with them. When you look around at a monitor your field of view remains the same.
And normal video gamers are currently fine with 720p, jaggies, 30 fps, sitting on the couch eating doritos playing with a sub-optimal controller. Or more likely just playing Candy Crush on their phones.
What makes you think these people dream about total immersion?
What is Gear VR?
This is all to do with aesthetic perception and marketing. People like pewdiepie whilst annoying are helped to put the word out there, and tons of companies are using VR for their shit.
They hired Carbon Design to design CV1.
Are you dumb?
Uh, so don't strain them? What does this have to do with what we're talking about. You constantly move your eyes to focus on different parts of your wide monitor I'm sure and you're not moving your head much.
Or do not have the patience to take care of contact lenses
I like being able to take my glasses off at any time and stuff them in my pocket, or put them on the desk. I like that I don't need to carry around a bottle of solution, or a special case, or worry about one of the lenses falling out and being lost forever, or having to poke myself in the eye several times a day, or having something shift and try to slide behind my eyeball, or having to replace them more than once a year, etc etc
No, glasses do not look cool and it's the current hipster trend, which is why I don't wear them when I go out.
>What makes you think these people dream about total immersion?
Because that's literally the dream, the matrix, being inside a game, why do people buy bigger tvs?
To be more immersed, I can assure you that ANYONE who's told they can buy a device to be inside a game would be interested. And if it's cheap enough ($200-$400) they'd get it.
I've tried it and it's a gimmick. I could see how it would be useful for flight sims, but the only game I fly in is ARMA and I would NEVER use it for ARMA. Good luck spotting the enemy hidden in the treelines with those scanlines and those shitty screens.
You say this but you're dead wrong. Again, if people were aching for the "most immersive" anything why are people still playing racing games with a controller on a TV and not in a racing chair with a multi-monitor set-up connected to a PC?
Because people don't fucking care about "immersion" and there exists no 1:1 correlation with fun and fucking "immersion".
Made this a million years ago. And they have included position head tracking and have been rumored to be working on hand tracking
It's a movement issue, not a view one. Moving the game with your head is like the #1 thing with this shit, no? That's why the concept is flawed because you don't normally look around by tossing your head around.
Ever heard that people don't generally look up? Guess why, it's because tossing your head back to do so is taxing and unnatural. Meanwhile OR requires you to toss your head to look anywhere.
Holy shit I'm saving this for future arguments, thanks anon.
Because that's expensive as fuck and requires multiple shit for only one game, the Oculus is a self contained device that achieves this and can be used with a variety of games. I'm not gonna spend 2k for a racing simulator but with Oculus I could use it as that or other things
Can't wait to play perverted, degenerate, horny shit like pic related, along with my racing games.
If you're going for immersion you'll still need a racing wheel, a flight stick, an usb onahole and so on for each game. Plus you'll need a pretty powerful PC to run the game basically twice.
I've tried the oculus. It's kind of hit and miss. Some things end up in the uncanny valley with it, other things are amazing. Played Elite: Dangerous on it with a flight stick and throttle, got blown the fuck away. Highly recommend it for flight sims.
No you won't, the Oculus Rift is immersive by itself, those add to it, but only on a tactile, haptic level, the Oculus Rift does so visually, which is massively more important and more effective.
Knowing the industry VR won't get any interesting games as implementation comes at high costs and consumerbase will be too little to cater to it. This in return probably kills the VR hype quickly. It'll be a bunch of shitty walking simulators and the occasional non-VR oriented title from indy devs getting support.
OR is just a small part of what is to come. In the current state the Oculus is pretty much only useful for flightsims. How are you supposed to rotate 360 degrees without snapping your neck like a fucking owl?
THIS is what will bring VR into gaming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXtysynpc-U
The resolution needs to be at least 3 times higher to be worth anything. Burned my eyes look at the shit screen, you can see every single pixel in a grid.
Meaning, once the dpi is good enough, you'll need the highest end computer for the graphics to look anywhere near good at that resolution.
>Ever heard that people don't generally look up? Guess why, it's because tossing your head back to do so is taxing and unnatural. Meanwhile OR requires you to toss your head to look anywhere.
What are you talking about? You only have to look up to look up, you look left to look left. Just like you would in real life. There is a narrower field of view than regular vision I give you that, it is comparable to wearing a motorcycle helmet. But you are not going to get much better than that with non-curved screens
>Plus you'll need a pretty powerful PC to run the game basically twice.
No you'll still need to run the game once, however you will need to render two views. Since the two views are quite similar you can optimize.
No go back to reddit you fucking retard.
If you own an Oculus and not nolimits 2, you're missing out big time.
Is there anyone who plays all day long with any VR helmet in this thread? I don't think so.
Look at all the fucking retards who don't even know what a gimmick is. I only ever come to this place to laugh at you guys and you deliver every time. Let me help you :
verb (used with object)
to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often followed by up):
to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.
I didn't know watching my movies/tv shows or whatever on a huge cinema screen inside an actual theater was useless. You're right guys, it's so much better on my tiny monitor!
Wow, this looks so shit, like the worst gaming experience ever ! http://youtu.be/-RehCTRrWM0?t=2m58s
I'd rather play Call of Duty on my tv!!!
See OP this is what you get when you try to discuss new technologies and their potential with autists. You won't find imagination or ambition here, stick to r/Oculus for VR discussion, like I do.
>2015 will change the entertainment industry forever
It is gonna happen.
Shush, yes it will, Oculus has already affected cinema, Pixars rebuilding one of their films for VR, Interstellar has its own VR experience (of which there will be many more), VR is getting big,
Simulator games benefit greatly from the Rift. It's not going away there, anymore than joysticks and steering wheels. Japanese porn games will use it as well. Pretty much no other genre is going to change until about 10 years, where 8k resolution, eye-tracking, and PCs capable of driving that will make it possible to bring it into the mainstream.
They got bought out by facebook.
Plus this thing is like the Atari of gaming. It's primitive and if it's successful some other company is bound to make a superior version of it.
You tell me and this is on a cell phone.
Yeah, I personally don't care for the theater apps, and just use a giant screen nearby. Theater might be cool if you could stream shit and have a bunch of anons join you in the theater.
> no babies screaming in the back
> no niggers laughing constantly and saying "oohh oooga boooga!"
> no 12 year old kicking the back of your seat
> You can pause it to take a piss anytime
> You can eat anything you desire
> brb stuffing pizza in my mouth watching newest blockbuster
Imagine the possibilities, some of you have absolute zero creativity
So I'm personally not interested because I don't really care about immersion whatsoever and it looks like first person view is the only viewpoint they'd be doing.
This, I'd love just to stream netflix with friends, or watch twitch streams or something.
Nope, one of their most successful games is third person, Luckey's Tale apparently it works REALLY well with it.
>Shit in third person makes you feel like you are playing with dolls though.
>like in that illusion game Hako where you play with naked tiny anime girls and cum on them with your giant penis
There are a bunch of third person VR games. I think the GearVR comes with a third person space ship thing and a zelda style dungeon crawler, for example.
People are still in the process of figuring out what you can do with this tech, really.
I get motion sick from FPS games, as well. I'll never be able to play Half Life 2, that literally made me almost through up playing on a normal screen. In the Rift, I'm perfectly fine with cockpit games, though. I spent 6 hours straight in Elite, last night.
Guys, check it out! This will revolutionize PC cooling!
The infection is called labyrinthitis, and I get it once or twice a year, and it's basically fucked my balance up.
Not all games have the same affect though, I'm fine with racing games strangely.
Also MUH FOV makes fuck all difference.
It's a niche product, like racing wheels. It isn't great for every type of game around ,and you're not going to use it for day to day interactions with your computer.
It will probably sell as well as, and cost as much as, a good racing wheel. Expecting everyone on the earth to start using it to play fucking puzzle games and platformers is absurd though.
Imagine walking around and and sometimes feeling like the floor is moving at a different speed to you, like those moving escalator flat things, whatever the fuck they're called at airports.
You mean being a floating camera behind it, or a fixed camera? Fixed camera is fine. A floating camera depends on your acceleration. You will probably need to have settings you can change to make a floating camera feel right for you individually.
The DK1 wasn't as good as I hoped it'd be when I used it, but it still managed to produce some of the sense of being in the world I was hoping for.
To which end I imagine Crystal Cove has worked out most of the kinks and it'll actually be really neat to play with, but the biggest issue is the fact that there is no real way of interacting with the game outside of either a clumsy gamepad or a ridiculous and non-versatile giant rig.
>5 years from now
>the first movie that supports full Oculus Rift vision is released
>you can literally watch whatever point in the movie you want
>you can spend the entire movie looking backwards if you can
>this gives rise to the age of the best mindfuck movies ever
>clues littered everywhere in the movie, you just have to know where to look
>plot points and even entire plots can be hidden in off view angles
Well, Oculus has just acquired a company that's working on hand tracking. So maybe that'll go somewhere. There are some pretty impressive demos on youtube using another hand tracking device.
I did see in the newsletter they'd acquired that company and honestly it's a massive improvement over expecting people to use Hydras and Leap Motions.
But it's still ultimately only as versatile as a Kinect would be. Which is 'not very'.
There's already a company doing short films for the thing. I hear they're kinda crappy, but it's probably going to be a thing.
Personally, I just want to see this shot in full 360° 3D. Apparently it's good at setting up a sense of scale.
>I've already set aside plenty of money for one as well as any extra stuff I'd want to go along with it (steering wheels and the like).
>I'm genuinely pumped for the commercial release in Bongland.
Body is ready, bring it on.
Not him, but you can occasionally.
But you faggots end up calling eachother newfags, shills, or faggots.
Which is why every other site has that upvote culture, because when there's no rules you devolve it reaction faces and everything above.
BUT sometimes you can have a really good conversation.
shieeeeettt, i want this. Would be cool to have a more ''fun'' version too where you can make it so it looks like you are going through hell on a cart made of bones for example too.
I used an Occulus rift over the summer (The OG devkit, not the updated one).
It was pretty cool, but I had a massive problem with the FOV in the game it was playing on, not sure if that would be able to be changed or not without raping the resolution, but still.
It's cool, but not >300$ cool
This will have full Oculus Rift support, and that's what matters most.
OR must be supported by large 3rd parties for it to become a success.
* YouTube begins to natively support OR allowing viewers a much more intimate experience.
* Pornography streaming sites begin similar and native support of 3D video
* Hardware manufacturers begin to sell 3D digital video cameras at a reasonable price to make 3D video and streaming without a lot of technical know-how
* Additional hepatic feedback devices are developed and sold (maybe even bundled with) to further enhance the sense of immersion (queue the cock sucker devices)
* Proper advertisement of the OR and associated devices and equipment. The consumers OR needs will have to be shown the reason to buy the OR.
And those are just the super broad things that would need to happen. The OR is ready to become huge but just have Facebook money is not going to be enough... especially as Facebook continues to drive people off of it with privacy issues and the growing sentiment that Facebook is nothing but a political shit pot haven for trolls and advertisers.
>every oculus rift thread is a shill thread
I know, it feels bad, I brought one a few months ago, and I have used it for like 5 hours max. It's fucking awful, I'm pretty sure it's more them trying to justify their regret over shilling, I don't understand why people defend it, I've even seen people defend flaws that even oculus acknowledge exists.
I got to try it at local tech market.
Was pretty great other than being pixelated as hell. It was like staring a CRT from too close.
But the lack of delay with the tracking was impressive. It can easily cause feelings of vertigo, and the device's capability to sense your movements was great.
So, how much for head-mounted 3D display again? I kinda want one now.
I think VR won't just explode into popularity, as many related techs will have to play catch-up with the HMDs, which seem to be on a great track, considering 4k screens are becoming very possible very quickly.
Initially, the rift will have popularity with the sim crowd, first racing sims followed up by flight and space sims when the resolution becomes high enough.
The reason for this is because unlike other genres, vehicle sims already have all the needed input possibilities for a superb experience because you only need a wheel or flightstick.
I want to make a full body cage that you are fully surrounded by and essentially gives you 360degree control and feedback. As in it completely lifts you off the ground, and the things supporting your feet can actually simulate different surfaces.
It surely can't be impossible.
Massively expensive and intensely difficult.
But not impossible.
>Until they can create dynamic and realistic depth of field that can somehow track your eyes
Stop using buzzwords you don't understand. Your eyes create DOF when you focus on things at different depths and why would they need to track your eyes for that?
Does every jackass that compares OR to Virtual Boy is secretly bumping the thread? No one is actually that retarded right?
There are a bunch of different things going on with your eyes when you look at things at different ranges. The thing you're talking about is parallax, meaning that each eye receives a different image. The thing he's talking about is accomodation, meaning that the lenses in the eyes adjust for a different distance. HMDs can simulate the former, but not the latter.
I don't know how important that is, because I haven't tried one. I suspect that neither does he.
It's possible to play 3D games right now, you just have to do a certain trick with your eyes.
When I look at these stereoscopic images on my cellphone, I'm able to adjust my eyes in that weird way that makes these 3D images, but I can't do it while looking at them on my computer monitor.
When you look at this picture in a way that you're able to see THREE of her, you did it correctly.
It gets really trippy if you add a detail to one of these pictures. I saw one where it was two exact images side-by-side, but one had a penis and the other didn't and then when I got the third image effect going with my eyes the penis was there and it was slightly blurred and "fuzzy."
You are correct that HMDS can't simulate accommodation. It is also the least important visual cue. You pretty much have to have vision problems for it to be a significant part.
>make fake video claiming to have a prototype of a virtualization scanner like in Code Lyoko
>make a fake video of someone bringing a camera into the scanner with them and add some special effects
>make a Kickstarter to ask for investments
No matter how outlandishly stupid, there will always be retards to throw money at stuff on Kickstarter.
>Definition of gimmick in English:
>A trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade
>If it's able to fit a variety of means then it's not a gimmick
Nothing in that definition says that if it fits a variety of means it's not a gimmick. Try again VR apologist.
>Do you even know what a gimmick means?
>But the definition of the word is useless.
Next time avoid talking about the meaning of words if you are the first one who doesn't know the meaning of the word. It'll save you time and embarrassment.
>because really that argument was dumb from the start
We can agree on that so far. Not my fault idiots start basing their arguments on their incorrect meaning of words, tho.
In any case VR is indeed a gimmick. It's just that people always thinks a gimmick is bad, for some reason.
Oculus rift is one hell of a good gimmick.
the vidya industry is a fucking juggernaut
and while I have no doubt that VR HMDs like the Rift or
Gear VRare really, really cool, they're nowhere near able to topple something like that
especially not while they carry the stigma of having to strap a big old box to your face
>Every decade VR tries to make it big
>every decade it fails horribly and fades into obscurity
>VR apologists eat it up and make retarded claims without fail
>IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE INDUSTRY
>WELL THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT HAS X.
>X HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE
>it's been close to two years since the rift came out and literally nothing has come out of it but hype
I'm waiting for the VRbabby tears. I've got my mug and a lemon wedge ready
>mobile phones were a gimmick once
>literally one of the most useful inventions since the television and the internet
> ever a gimmick
>so were touch screens
And then they became standard once people saw how useful they were. That and Apple, a giant in technology, marketed them to death to an already rabid group of zealots who forced it to catch on. NOt to mention the fact that the touchscreen interface turned out to be much more intuitive than anything a flip phone could bring to the market
All of those are very rare factors that contributed to the takeoff of smartphones.
The OR has none of those features
Facebook is a giant in social media. It doesn't even have a product. It makes ad revenue. You'd better hope word of mouth turns the OR into the next iphone because that's all it has going for it.
Next time at least try to seem
>because that's all it has going for it.
Yeah not like feeling you're in a virtual space is anything right?
Facebook is a giant, and they themselves have said 50m-100m headset sales in 10 years
Not really. There were a couple of weeks where >facebook became the reply of choice and then everything went back to pretty much how it was before the acquisition. That's why out of the 400 posts in this thread, only 16 contain the word "facebook".
Mobile phones are older than the internet. And they started as a fucking gimmick.
And really, it's very unclear what argument you're even trying to make here. Because you yourself are saying that something that seems like a gimmick can become a widely used feature.
Also, I don't think VR will become the next iphone anytime soon. That's because there's a spectrum between "the next iphone" and "forgotten gimmick".
Facebook has zero experience with hardware.
Rift is pricey peripheral that requires a high end PC to function. It's strictly an enthusiast's device. Given how badly VR products and PC peripherals in general sell, there's no way in hell this could sell 5 million units per year.
These numbers were made up by Palmer so he could sell his company to investors. They're not real.
>Yeah not like feeling you're in a virtual space is anything right
Are you retarded? I don't care how cool the gimmick is. The fact is that it has nothing but word of mouth going for it.
>people will buy it and it will become the next big thing just because it's cool
Guess that means that racing wheels will become mainstream and everyone will have one and they'll change the industry becuase of how practical and cool they are.
Oh wait. only hobbyists have them because they're fucking expensive and only used for a single type of game (sound familiar)
are you 5 or something?
>Facebook is a giant, and they themselves have said 50m-100m headset sales in 10 years
>an estimation suggests profit
Now I know you're 5
stop posting this shit. No one cares how much you get paid for shilling. No one's going to buy the thing.
>And they started as a fucking gimmick
>walki-talkies and radios started as a gimmick
You know what else "started as a gimmick" cars. they were toys only hobbyists could afford to buy and maintain. But unlike the OR they were practical. and people wanted them.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that the OR will be on the "forgotten gimmick" end of the spectrum. Literally nothing says otherwise.
Mobile phones are older than the internet. And they started as a fucking gimmick. There were analog mobile phones.
And really, it's hard to see what argument you're even trying to make here. Because what you're saying is that something that seems like a gimmick, such as a touchscreen
or a VR HMD, can stop being one once people accept it.
Also, I don't think VR will become the next iphone anytime soon. That is because there is a spectrum between "the next iphone" and "forgotten gimmick".
Or even better. a 3d camera you mount on top of the monitor. Would be trippy as fuck to look down on yourself, from the top of your monitor.
Can't wait to give the cv1 a go while on acid
Who the fuck said a year?
>What is growth?
But unlike the OR they were practical.
So is the Oculus for Education, the Military, Medicine I don't get your point.
>Literally nothing says otherwise.
God you're so unbelivably ignorant all you're doing is making your side the ONLY side.
Your entire post boils down to you not seeing what's supposed to be so great about VR. Which is exactly what most people I know used to say about using a phone that doesn't have physical buttons to press with your thumb.
>Having any technology to share
Sony made high res headsets long before Rift even was a kickstarter. They have the technology advantage because they actually have the display technology.
Rift has no unique technology.
>So is the Oculus for Education, the Military, Medicine I don't get your point.
VR has always been practical for that. I'm not getting why it would take off now if the potential was already there
>BECAUSE THIS TIME IT HAS THIS
please refer to my original post
>God you're so unbelivably ignorant all you're doing is making your side the ONLY side.
lol you sound mad. How bout you come up with some opposing evidence instead of crying that someone's not jumping on the hype train, faggot
>Your entire post boils down to you not seeing what's supposed to be so great about VR
Except it doesn't say that at all. I have games I want for VR. Hell I designed several games for it myself. I think it's a great product. The difference between you and me is that I'm not supporting shit until it proves its greatness beyond walking sims and shitty free to download games on some indiedev's blog.
>Which is exactly what most people I know used to say about using a phone that doesn't have physical buttons to press with your thumb.
I've never heard anyone ever say that literally ever. I had only ever heard hype for the iphone and within a few months everyone had one. Enjoy being wrong though
>I'm not getting why it would take off now if the potential was already there
Because smartphones have made good acceleration sensors and small, lightweight high resolution displays possible and affordable.
As for your VR games, now I'm curious. What do they run on? Can you tell me their names? Are there gameplay videos on youtube or something?
>Whoever has the highest res, highest FOV and most comfortable to wear headset will win the OR race.
That's all assuming it runs with a decent framerate and a low head tracking latency. Which is up to the software.
>Because smartphones have made good acceleration sensors and small, lightweight high resolution displays possible and affordable.
The point is that things don't take off until larger companies or industry giants start the trend. No matter how revolutionary. If the OR takes off it will be through someone like Nintendo, not facebook.
>As for your VR games, now I'm curious. What do they run on? Can you tell me their names? Are there gameplay videos on youtube or something?
I designed them, not developed
Saving up to develop a VR arcade in a big city
>All these people who don't understand the concept of 'first steps'.
You have to learn how to get into orbit before you can plan to go the moon. The DKs and CV1 will look stoneaged when we're all wearing our lightweight AR glasses but we'd owe it to the development they allowed.
Framerate is up to the GPU and the game and has nothing to do with the headset software.
Tracking latency is better reduced with higher fps, lower response panels than software workarounds, which are easily copied, too.
Except I have tried it (because one of my poor friends bought a dev kit) and it was a gimmick like 3D.
It has potential though. It needs to be accompanied by a unique means of control. If it remains to be a screen attached 2 inches from our eyes it's kinda pointless.
The screen takes up almost your entire field of view if you don't sit at the very back when you see a stereoscopic film. Which uses the same methods for 3D. This is a step up with it tracking your head motions, but its still not that great. Improved, but not that amazing. I've used one before. A prototype one, and I'm not sure how much they have changed, but it really wasn't that great.
And when I watching a game or movies. I don't see the rest of the world. I get sort of tunnel vision. Where yeah everything else is technically there, but I'm not really made aware of it. The taking up the whole view only really matters if you can't get immersed otherwise. Which a lot of people can.
Because the experience was shit, this isn't.
Just to get people interested, having a VR station at an arcade could be cool.
And that combined technology has made something with is a completely new experience.
VR controllers like that one omnidirectional quasi-treadmill are sort of huge, and you may not want one in your living room.
Plus, you need a pretty beefy PC to run VR games with high-fidelity graffix, don't you?
I've got a couple main projects that sound fun.
One is an environment in which people are rigged to robotic arms coming from the floor and ceiling. Kind of like the cockpit in Pacific Rim. this allows you to do things like run, jump, and do accurate and dextrous like pilot a giant robot like in Pacific rim or jump around like the hulk, all while relatively stationary
the other is a barren room couple with an apparatus on the arms and legs that give resistance to the user as they touch virtual objects, simulating the object being there. Kind of like the Holo-Deck from Star Trek. This, along with a giant, omni-directional treadmill will make it so that you and even a group of people can walk in a simulated environment and interact with things in the virtual world. You could do shit like go on a fantasy adventure with friends or pretend you're the avatar and throw rocks or some shit at an opponent.
There's been a few ideas like that. I think wrap-around displays might help shorten the distance needed for the lens to work.
Beside, I'm not talking only about the hardware element. The software support and control schemes are just as important and they're moving things along pretty well already.
>Oculus only applies existing technology developed in other fields.
Do you realize how retarded that sounds? ALL TECHNOLOGY is developed that way. Do you think they hire Doc Brown to pop out and get their future tech, so it would count as something new?
>One is an environment in which people are rigged to robotic arms coming from the floor and ceiling
Do you think that's feasible? How much does your average industrial robot arm cost?
I mean, I've entertained that exact same thought, Pacific Rim and all, but I'm not planning on actually turning it into reality.
>completely new experience
except all the VR headsets before it
Keep dreaming. The market doesn't actually want this crap. The markets wants quick and easily accessible games that don't require strapping a $300+ peripheral to your face.
I tried it at ComicCon NY this year and noticed that the demo I played was a tad grainy in terms of visuals.
Are all the games you play on it like that or was it just a bad demo?
There's even a company that's developing gun-shaped controllers that simulate recoil by slinging around weights inside the thing. That seems like it could make for a really satisfying zombie splatter game or something.
That might have been the actual resolution of the screen you've been seeing. If you used a DK2, then the consumer version will probably have less of it, because it'll use a higher resolution display.