Fool me, this is real good shit ! [the VR thread]

[gilesgoat]

I don't know. There's a good chance, since there isn't going to be a huge overlap between VR games and non-VR games. There is going to be one, but arguably it might be a smaller overlap than exists now between PC and console.

As a peripheral it is doomed to niche, with no high-budget custom games, and it's those that will make the best of VR.

I hope it's not going to be too niche .. because :

1. it's really COOL stuff
2. it really has LOT of potential and the more work will be on the better it will get
3. we are working on this stuff and hopefully we'll do much more

It would be really arse if this stuff would turn out to be "so niche that is not sustaineable for small developers"
because .. "if you would have seen what I am seeing" .. you would understand.

VR is .. is "a new frontier" .. NOT the definitive answer to anything but certainly "a nice place to have at least a look at"

But it would be very sad if comes the day where "it's too much niche" that "only EA or something like that can maybe afford to do something for it".

On the other side it's DEFINITELY NOT realm for "any just trying to do some shit and see how it goes", you HAVE to take this stuff WITH CARE because "or you do it RIGHT or it really comes out SHIT" .. and really "bad shit" that really hurts you !

And same time also for developers of the HW stuff .. I hope there's emphasis in "doing it right and not too cheap" because in this case "too cheap is not going to work".

But yeah we are definitely into the challenge and WE KNOW, WE KNOW, WE CAN do "right stuff".

So what to say "keep an eye on LS VR output, you won't be disappointed"

[Dio]

Well, so do we all. But I wanted one to play HL2 on and I'm kind of annoyed that it doesn't work as well as I'd hoped.

(It's supposedly not as bad as many FPS' because it's more medium-paced than most, but I was hoping it would be completely dunking me in the world.)

The impressive thing about it is the way everyone goes bananas for it. I've hardly heard a bad word about it. Even the people who worry about its success in the mass market really want it to succeed. Even the people who have to play with a bucket next to the desk don't stop playing it.

[gilesgoat]

Well, so do we all. But I wanted one to play HL2 on and I'm kind of annoyed that it doesn't work as well as I'd hoped.

(It's supposedly not as bad as many FPS' because it's more medium-paced than most, but I was hoping it would be completely dunking me in the world.)

The impressive thing about it is the way everyone goes bananas for it. I've hardly heard a bad word about it. Even the people who worry about its success in the mass market really want it to succeed. Even the people who have to play with a bucket next to the desk don't stop playing it.

If you hardly heard any BAD word about those things then maybe there's a conspiracy hiding people like ME from the talks :

I am too VERY ENTHUSIASTIC and WANT this tech.

BUT ..

I am the first one maybe to say that "this tech still needs lot of improvements" ( especially for people wearing glasses ).

Well HL2 is kinda a "bookcase example" about WHY YOU CANNOT JUST TAKE A THING AND PUT IT INTO VR

Yes it *IS* territory of bucket & vomit cause you can do things you could not do in real life.

Now, come on, "enough of all this shit of .. " .. the reality is YOU CANNOT JUST TAKE A PIECE OF CODE YOU HAVE, PLUG IT IN AND HEY PRESTO ALL WORKS FOR FREE !

NO !

You take you game, you test it, and really "reality is" you HAVE TO REDESIGN AND MODIFY IT FOR VR *IF* YOU WANT TO HAVE IT GOOD.

Specifically, at the very least, you MUST have "two different game settings" let's say "select this if you are playing with VR, or this if not".

And you have to adjust some stuff for VR.

EXTRA WORK ? YES !

IMPOSSIBLE ? NO !

Just takes a bit of more extra work.

BUT

You want to support this VR tech ? -> DO IT.

You don't want to spend not even a nibble of extra time ? -> FORGET VR then.

As simple as that, there's NO such thing as a free meal.

[Jamesac]

If you're an advertising company wouldn't you want to own what could possibly be TV's replacement?

Going to have to call hyperbole on this one. I can't wait for the promise of the Rift to be fulfilled but it's no replacement for tv. The problem is that VR is an exclusionary technology. People watch tv with other people, and there's just no way to do that in VR. Once you're strapped into the headset you're inside the VR experience and excluded from the outside world while your friends/family can't share what you see without their own $350 headset. Even then, communication is going to be a pain.

I've watched tv with a large number of people in the room, crammed a good number of friends around a PC monitor to watch a video, and even looked at things with my girlfriend on her cell phone. It can get a little cozy, sure, but it's an inclusionary tech if you choose to use it that way. VR doesn't have that, and if anything prevents it from replacing any existing display tech that's going to be the cause.

I still expect it to be wildly popular, though.

James

[Dio]

Specifically, at the very least, you MUST have "two different game settings" let's say "select this if you are playing with VR, or this if not".

The implication I've seens it that for some game types, then all you need is settings, but for many common game types (especially FPS) you really need a different game, something much slower-paced, and there are some game types (e.g. third-person, with a traditional tracking camera) that are completely uinplayable.

I'm not saying you can't have an overlap, but there will be much more redesign than that.

[gilesgoat]

Specifically, at the very least, you MUST have "two different game settings" let's say "select this if you are playing with VR, or this if not".

The implication I've seens it that for some game types, then all you need is settings, but for many common game types (especially FPS) you really need a different game, something much slower-paced, and there are some game types (e.g. third-person, with a traditional tracking camera) that are completely uinplayable.

I'm not saying you can't have an overlap, but there will be much more redesign than that.

Exactly what I am saying, you NEED TO REDESIGN ( AND TEST ) some stuff.

"Short form" -> "make it slower" but there's MUCH more than that , some controls as well may need some change/redesign, even "the thing that looks the simplest" ( in a traditional screen ) can make you puke in VR "because that is NOT what the head/body expects to see".

You tried simply walk around with WASD and start looking left/right and go up a ladder or such ?

Few mins of that and you may be in the bucket and vomit territory because it gets the point you turn head, you press "forward" but you are NOT In this case moving in the direction where your head is looking at ..

"Mind expectancy + vision disagreement == vomit".

Impressive how vision also kinda "pre defines gravity" .. you go up/down and your body starts to get the feeling pre-calculating what gravity should tell you .. then gravity does not .. and after a while vomits begin to start ..

[Jimaroid]

Personally I don't want old / existing game experiences with VR jammed in. I want the new experiences that can only be done in VR, that's what's exciting about the whole thing, it's a new horizon that's finally within reach.

The oculus demos that have made me gawp the most are the very abstract experiences, where there's a lack of realism there's less disorientation and more awe. It's digital narcotics. And I can't help but dream about what's a good fit for that sort of experience. As a way to have completely new out of body music and visual experiences it's going to be amazing.

[gilesgoat]

Ah the super dreadful "outside camera" as well.

What we found out is "the frame of reference" thing .. if you have something that does not move at all and/or moves really slowly compared to the rest this helps you as an "anchor point", best case scenarios are those driving games with an inside vision and/or flight stuff with a cockpit vision.

Also I personally find out that "a not so fast moving horizon" and/or to have "something at some semi infinity point" NOT moving that fast really helps "to have a reference focus point" where you can "adjust your eyes" to look at and helps to "have something to reset the vision / keep it at when needed".

Remove those thingies and you get into the realm of "too lost to understand what's going on" -> vomit.

Also I start to believe "there's only a certain amount of changing information per frame you can process", I mean your MIND can process .. "too much shit moving all time" -> vomit again.

Like those 3D movies throwing things in you face every 20 seconds .. "crap" .. a bit is fine, too much is not.

But the worst of all I've seen so far that is DEFINITELY one thing MUST be sorted out as much as possible is the motion blur.

Nothing makes all "so worse than what it could be" than that motion blur.

I can't wait to see the second version of Oculus, we already pre-ordered it

[gilesgoat]

Personally I don't want old / existing game experiences with VR jammed in. I want the new experiences that can only be done in VR, that's what's exciting about the whole thing, it's a new horizon that's finally within reach.

The oculus demos that have made me gawp the most are the very abstract experiences, where there's a lack of realism there's less disorientation and more awe. It's digital narcotics. And I can't help but dream about what's a good fit for that sort of experience. As a way to have completely new out of body music and visual experiences it's going to be amazing.

... beware what you ask for Jimaroid ...

[pogo]

Going to have to call hyperbole on this one. I can't wait for the promise of the Rift to be fulfilled but it's no replacement for tv. The problem is that VR is an exclusionary technology.

One answer to that is 'buy some more VR headsets' – if watching TV is inclusive it could be even more so if people are experiencing the same content but able to independently control their viewpoint. But I agree it's not a TV replacement. It's a new gaming platform primarily. Apart from that it will be used for non-gaming VR, but that's a niche application.

TV is heavily curated content, produced and edited for a 2D flat screen. It's been dragged into the 21st century with HD, but other than that barely changed in 50 years. You can now use Tweets or FB to interact with it, but that's just taken over from analog ways of interacting and previously used for votes, feedback, competitions. They've must have looked at 3D but aren't interested. They're not going to be supporting VR any time soon.

There will be games, but what else? VR's been around for a long time on PCs but has never gained much traction. Apple added VR support to QuickTime 20 years ago, and many tools appeared to author content. But it's never taken off - you see it occasionally but much less now than then, and it was never more than a niche technology.

Now people tend to write their own software, often using Flash, Silverlight or HTML 5 for web viewing. Google Streetview started in Flash but is now available as HTML 5, and of course an app on phones. But these work quite well in the browser, you can zoom in and zoom out, use the mouse to quickly jump from place to place, back out back to the web / view related content in another window.

[Jimaroid]

... beware what you ask for Jimaroid ...

Durr! I know you know I know what I'm asking for

My dream experience for VR? Teleport sequence from 2001 please.

[gilesgoat]

... beware what you ask for Jimaroid ...

Durr! I know you know I know what I'm asking for

My dream experience for VR? Teleport sequence from 2001 please.

Of course I know, don't even need to say it

[gilesgoat]

Going to have to call hyperbole on this one. I can't wait for the promise of the Rift to be fulfilled but it's no replacement for tv. The problem is that VR is an exclusionary technology.

One answer to that is 'buy some more VR headsets' – if watching TV is inclusive it could be even more so if people are experiencing the same content but able to independently control their viewpoint. But I agree it's not a TV replacement. It's a new gaming platform primarily. Apart from that it will be used for non-gaming VR, but that's a niche application.

TV is heavily curated content, produced and edited for a 2D flat screen. It's been dragged into the 21st century with HD, but other than that barely changed in 50 years. You can now use Tweets or FB to interact with it, but that's just taken over from analog ways of interacting and previously used for votes, feedback, competitions. They've must have looked at 3D but aren't interested. They're not going to be supporting VR any time soon.

There will be games, but what else? VR's been around for a long time on PCs but has never gained much traction. Apple added VR support to QuickTime 20 years ago, and many tools appeared to author content. But it's never taken off - you see it occasionally but much less now than then, and it was never more than a niche technology.

Now people tend to write their own software, often using Flash, Silverlight or HTML 5 for web viewing. Google Streetview started in Flash but is now available as HTML 5, and of course an app on phones. But these work quite well in the browser, you can zoom in and zoom out, use the mouse to quickly jump from place to place, back out back to the web / view related content in another window.

Attention Pogo that MAYBE ONLY *NOW* we start to have SOME VR that DOES NOT COST THE MOON and that ACTUALLY KINDA WORKS KINDA WELL.

Because don't tell me "it's been around 20 years" .. no ..it's "20 years ago there was something working REALLY SHITTY AND NOT REALLY USEABLE".

Now .. tracking works ..video ok .. optics still a bit to work .. "but there's something that actually is ALMOST pretty good and it will be with some improvements".

But no .. "20 years ago there was NOTHING" like what we can have now

[Dio]

Yeah, Forsyth talked about that too. In particular, he recommended caution dealing with papers on VR because most of the work was done on astronomically awful gear and lots of the research isn't valid. He called out one particular thing (can't remember exactly what) that the literature recommended but made things worse on Oculus; the hypothesis is that it makes bad VR more tolerable but good VR worse.

It's quite astonishing that a pair of lenses, a tablet, a bit of gaffer tape and a modern GPU produces a VR system that's significantly superior to the best the world had come up with to that point.

[pogo]

Because don't tell me "it's been around 20 years" .. no ..it's "20 years ago there was something working REALLY SHITTY AND NOT REALLY USEABLE".

I should have maybe been clearer. My point was, when you think of what content can go on it, much of that content already exists and has been around for 20 years or more (QTVR made it easy to create and view VR content but Apple didn't invent the technology). It's not been especially popular over that time, so there's not a lot of content. What there is now is primarily web based.

Maybe the Rift and similar devices will change that, but we don't know until it gets into the hands of consumers. And I'm not convinced it will. Most of the uses of VR now are web-based, as that's where the eyeballs are, but also as when you've got a VR view you also often want some 2D content to describe it. You maybe want to zoom quickly in and out, jump around or rapidly follow paths, difficult to control by moving a VR headset (and maybe likely to give you motion sickness) so you want a mouse.

I'm sure people are working on Rift-based solutions to these. But there may be resistance, from users happy with using the web and content owners happy with how things are now. Google in particular own the biggest library of VR content in Streetview, I can't see them making it available for Facebook's device any time soon.

You can create new content but that takes lots of time and money - think the years and hundreds of thousands of miles it's taken for Streetview. All for something that keeps most people amused for a few minutes at a time. Even if someone does it (or pays Google enough money for rights) it will sell very few headsets. People will buy it for games but not for other VR content.