Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Sam Posten, Jan 7, 2014.
The second you introduce an external camera, you immediately get people to not want it. I think the reason the first Rift was neat was because it was just one piece. The best thing they can do for this product is make it wireless, low latency, and then cheap.
And even then...this is like 3D gaming. Sure, its neat, but its a niche of a niche. It will never catch on, it will never see the support it needs, and it will never be mainstream. The last time niche gaming tech went mainstream was the Wii and that's probably because Wii Sports was perfect.
We'll see. I ordered mine this morning.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/oculus-rift-dev-kit-2-launches-with-960x1080-resolution-lower-latency/
I worked with a commercial 3D headset back in the mid-90s that used the magnetic field to have a full 360 absolute rotation. I needed a cage to keep me from wandering off but it was pretty cool albeit extremely low res. I'm surprised we have not seen a big push for any kind of VR helmet system since, especially with the high resolution that HMDs can achieve. However with this system being a 'fixed forward' setup and the user is expected to stay seated, it seems like it would be best for racing games and it would be awesome for racing games.
Sam - why did you order it? This isn't even the retail unit so its not like there are many games or things you could do with it.
I think VR hasn't caught on for the same reason 3D didn't catch on. There's a price and technical expertise barrier that needs to be crossed first, in addition to the discomfort of "a thing on my face for hours at a time." People hate having polarized 3D glasses on for 2 hour movies, how can you expect them to want to wear a VR headset for an 8 hour gaming session?
I think VR where you actually walk around is going to be a non-starter. I also think the PS Move is the best way to have your hands actually interact with what's going on in your visor so Sony has a good head start in that direction. Kinect could do something similar, but having no buttons to press makes its integration tougher (plus the Kinect has more lag than PS Move, in general). Oculus Rift is a great technology that looks good and works well with a much more limited application. I see at the tech you use for demos or cool interactive displays more than real, solid, long-term gaming.
Because I own and like the first generation and expect to do the same for each successive generations, including the consumer level one when that comes out. I am a software developer you know. I experiment with all kinds of tech.
Ahh, good point then. It just seems like there's nothing but some neat tech demos on it, so I don't see the point yet.
you realize there are hundreds of games on steam with support for it today, right?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support
Any good ones?
Good or not too good. That is the question
Welp, it's over. Guess I'm cancelling my order....http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/03/facebook-to-acquire-oculus/
Cacodemons in my news feed? Shotguns to dispense of BuzzFeed links?Quad Damage status updates!!!
Sure, kick us when we're down =(
I think Sony is going to win this round regardless. Because they'll come out with a VR headset (PS4) that will be uniform so developers will know the platform and can bet people will grab the games.
Like Sony is any better =phttp://imgur.com/JeidGlO
It appears @Oatmeal called OculusBook a year ago:http://theoatmeal.com/comics/running6https://twitter.com/digiphile/status/448633242485137408/photo/1
This may be one of the most annoying analysis I've ever read.
The 'problem isn't that the got rich'.. oh wait, the problem is pretty much exactly that they got rich. Boo-hoo, they cashed in to venture capitalists. I mean, wank. This was a project that was going to take tens of millions of dollars not just to fund, but to create a distribution network, a means of development, etc. etc. It was an idea that needed a big company to swing in and I think anyone who donated should have realized this from the beginning.The idea of sponsoring and backing it wasn't a matter of saying 'and they will never take corporate money', it was to show there was enough interest in this product to hopefully attract someone to move forward on it. Now, admittedly, I think if say, Apple had bought them Sam you'd be far less opposed
But there were other targets.. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony and others were probably considered to be in the hunt. The idea that the writer of the boing-boing puts out that 'boo hoo, this is exactly what we were trying to avoid.. hoping to change things..' is one of the most childish rants I've ever read. You did change things. You put up money and you got people interested and you rooted for it through development. That's it.
Ok, my rant over.
Anyone but Facebook, AOL, Zynga, EA or Ultraviolet, Matt. Even Samsung or Google woulda been interesting.Long form from The Verge:http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/25/5547946/welcome-to-planet-facebook?utm_content=buffer86c6a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer