http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/04/half-life-2-modded-for-oculus-rift-support/

Wow, point proven pretty fast!!!! Hooray for people who know what they are talking about!

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

Well, I remember the Novint Falcon several years ago and how people were talking about how it's going to revolutionize first person shooters. I also remember a lot of companies embracing it such DICE and Valve. Then of course the hype died down and here we are.

So I think that's what is going to happen with this. But I haven't tried it myself so who knows.

This is a day 1 buy for me, because I already have a G25 wheel to go with it.

As it's been pointed out, this will only work well with dedicated peripherals, ideally with a camera/kinect style device that would transfer your movements to virtual limbs (at least your hands).

Playing with joypad / keyboard mouse would be "fine", I GUESS, but wouldn't really enhance the existing games (FPS, MMO, etc) by much. You need head tracking at the minimum.

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

You do realize that this is how things come to fruition don't you? Oh wait... you don't! Well lets see, if people like you had their way then we'd still be using paintings as pictures, if the generation after that was like you, then we'd still be stuck with black and white photos as people were actually against colour at first, or how about people who complained about cars and said the same thing? No thanks, I don't want to be stuck with paintings and riding horses everyday, I'd rather keep moving forward.

So to counterpoint:

1. The hardware will be universally plug and play for windows, and whether this iteration, or a future one takes off, many more than just a handful of games will be supported (much like 3D cards when they first came out, remember 3DFX?... probably not)

2. When something new comes out it is typically at a higher cost, as manufacturing becomes simplified the price will drop. This is true for almost any industry. Again, look at video cards.

3. The big boys don't need to pick it up. If they did, it would be great as it would absolutely launch things forward at a faster pace, but whether they do or don't, VR is something that too many people have wanted and even dreamt about for decades to just be swept under the carpet.

The world is ready to accept this. We are just at the beginning stages. You have to start somewhere. Things don't just become popular out of the blue unless you are talking about pop music.

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

1 - USB and will play any game that supports it painlessly.

2 - The consumer version will be inexpensive

3 - I remember when the Big Boys wore diapers. What matters is the developers are picking it up. Nothing succeeds without the games and this is starting strong.

Ive got a Rift developer kit ordered, im designing a game specifically to take advantage of its functionality. Ive used this tech before and understand completely the immersion quality we are getting. Dont know how true the "next generation" statements are but ill say this - Im not spending a cent on any next generation console unless they support Rift. 

Thousands have bought the developers version. Maybe you just dont quite grasp what I and so many are ready for?

Originally posted by atuerstar

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

 

1 - USB and will play any game that supports it painlessly.

2 - The consumer version will be inexpensive

3 - I remember when the Big Boys wore diapers. What matters is the developers are picking it up. Nothing succeeds without the games and this is starting strong.

 

Ive got a Rift developer kit ordered, im designing a game specifically to take advantage of its functionality. Ive used this tech before and understand completely the immersion quality we are getting. Dont know how true the "next generation" statements are but ill say this - Im not spending a cent on any next generation console unless they support Rift. 

 

Thousands have bought the developers version. Maybe you just dont quite grasp what I and so many are ready for?

Any game that will support it. That's the problem right there. You have to be pretty naive if you think this will be universally supported. I'll give it an A for effort though. Truth is these gimmicky VR gaming goggles have come and gone over and over since the 90's and until as I said the big consoles start to integrate them they will never make it on to the mass market. Even if a few developers embraces them

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

You do realize that this is how things come to fruition don't you? Oh wait... you don't! Well lets see, if people like you had their way then we'd still be using paintings as pictures, if the generation after that was like you, then we'd still be stuck with black and white photos as people were actually against colour at first, or how about people who complained about cars and said the same thing? No thanks, I don't want to be stuck with paintings and riding horses everyday, I'd rather keep moving forward.

So to counterpoint:

1. The hardware will be universally plug and play for windows, and whether this iteration, or a future one takes off, many more than just a handful of games will be supported (much like 3D cards when they first came out, remember 3DFX?... probably not)

2. When something new comes out it is typically at a higher cost, as manufacturing becomes simplified the price will drop. This is true for almost any industry. Again, look at video cards.

3. The big boys don't need to pick it up. If they did, it would be great as it would absolutely launch things forward at a faster pace, but whether they do or don't, VR is something that too many people have wanted and even dreamt about for decades to just be swept under the carpet.

The world is ready to accept this. We are just at the beginning stages. You have to start somewhere. Things don't just become popular out of the blue unless you are talking about pop music.

None of your examples is really proof that this will succeed or not. Until it does lets leave it at speculation shall we?. I personally don't believe it since I've seen at least 3 of these being hyped up but never making it to the mass market

Better motion tracking system than kinect for hands 

I know that it is ugly ... but with 1$ you can have "minority report" glove

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

1)  While that will never entirely happen, it's kind of like saying that games will never entirely abandon pure 2D graphics.  Support could become very widespread, however, but it will take several years.  The latest versions of DirectX and OpenGL both support stereoscopic 3D.  If games that use the latest graphics APIs implement stereoscopic 3D properly (which I don't think would be all that hard, but I'm not entirely certain), then it will work not only with the Oculus Rift, but also with every other stereoscopic 3D implementation, from active shutter glasses to polarity glasses to whatever people come up with in the future.

2)  It's basically a computer monitor in a different form factor.  Whatever you're going to do, you'll need a computer monitor.

3)  Console support is thoroughly unnecessary.  For PC use, the "big boys" means the DirectX and OpenGL APIs, both of which support it.

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

You do realize that this is how things come to fruition don't you? Oh wait... you don't! Well lets see, if people like you had their way then we'd still be using paintings as pictures, if the generation after that was like you, then we'd still be stuck with black and white photos as people were actually against colour at first, or how about people who complained about cars and said the same thing? No thanks, I don't want to be stuck with paintings and riding horses everyday, I'd rather keep moving forward.

So to counterpoint:

1. The hardware will be universally plug and play for windows, and whether this iteration, or a future one takes off, many more than just a handful of games will be supported (much like 3D cards when they first came out, remember 3DFX?... probably not)

2. When something new comes out it is typically at a higher cost, as manufacturing becomes simplified the price will drop. This is true for almost any industry. Again, look at video cards.

3. The big boys don't need to pick it up. If they did, it would be great as it would absolutely launch things forward at a faster pace, but whether they do or don't, VR is something that too many people have wanted and even dreamt about for decades to just be swept under the carpet.

The world is ready to accept this. We are just at the beginning stages. You have to start somewhere. Things don't just become popular out of the blue unless you are talking about pop music.

1)  The problem isn't hardware support.  We've been using monitors for a long, long time, and it's just another monitor.  Stereoscopic 3D does change some things, but both AMD and Nvidia support it in their drivers.

I wouldn't be entirely shocked if Intel does, too.  Or if Intel doesn't start officially supporting it until 2018 and doesn't have actual working support until 2030.  Intel video drivers are hard to predict.

2)  While there are economies of scale, if stereoscopic 3D catches on, it won't necessarily mean sales of tens of millions of Oculus Rifts; it will mean there are a ton of competitors, just like there are with normal monitors.  Industry standard APIs mean that if a game supports one stereoscopic 3D approach, it can support all of the rest with no additional work.

3)  We've had stereoscopic 3D since the 1950s, and it still hasn't really caught on.  Maybe it will become ubiquitous soon, or maybe in 50 years, it still won't have caught on.

If it:

1. Can be worn with glasses

2. Has a quick hotkey to show me the real world without a moments pause (like if I need to answer my phone or pick up a coffee cup or see who entered the room etc.)

3. Doesn't track my head/eye movement - I want to aim/look etc. with the mouse/keyboard not give myself neck pain and muscle spasms

I may consider buying one for the immersion, as long as

4. it doesn't cost more than 100-200$.

Originally posted by atuerstar

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

 

1 - USB and will play any game that supports it painlessly.

2 - The consumer version will be inexpensive

3 - I remember when the Big Boys wore diapers. What matters is the developers are picking it up. Nothing succeeds without the games and this is starting strong.

 

Ive got a Rift developer kit ordered, im designing a game specifically to take advantage of its functionality. Ive used this tech before and understand completely the immersion quality we are getting. Dont know how true the "next generation" statements are but ill say this - Im not spending a cent on any next generation console unless they support Rift. 

 

Thousands have bought the developers version. Maybe you just dont quite grasp what I and so many are ready for?

USB?  Egad, I hope not.  If they're using USB to pass through the monitor signal, then the Oculus Rift is dead on arrival and we should look elsewhere.  Even USB 3.0 (which many computers don't have) doesn't have enough bandwidth unless they're using a very low monitor resolution.  There are some USB monitors out there, and they're dreadful, even for just a single monitor that's not trying to do anything fancy apart from using USB.  For this, you'd want a recent version of DisplayPort, HDMI, or DVI.

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by atuerstar

Originally posted by Starpower

This will never amount to anything. The idea of virtual reality is great but the implementation not so much.

 

1. You would need the hardware to be universally plug and play and not just support a handful of games

2. You need the toy to be inexpensive

Once you got those two things covered then you need

3. The big boys to pick it up, like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo

 

The world isn't ready to accept this yet, we are just not far enough technically to fill point 1 and 2

 

1 - USB and will play any game that supports it painlessly.

2 - The consumer version will be inexpensive

3 - I remember when the Big Boys wore diapers. What matters is the developers are picking it up. Nothing succeeds without the games and this is starting strong.

 

Ive got a Rift developer kit ordered, im designing a game specifically to take advantage of its functionality. Ive used this tech before and understand completely the immersion quality we are getting. Dont know how true the "next generation" statements are but ill say this - Im not spending a cent on any next generation console unless they support Rift. 

 

Thousands have bought the developers version. Maybe you just dont quite grasp what I and so many are ready for?

Any game that will support it. That's the problem right there. You have to be pretty naive if you think this will be universally supported. I'll give it an A for effort though. Truth is these gimmicky VR gaming goggles have come and gone over and over since the 90's and until as I said the big consoles start to integrate them they will never make it on to the mass market. Even if a few developers embraces them

There weren't any industry standard APIs that supported it until very recently.  OpenGL 4.2 brought stereoscopic 3D support in 2011, and DirectX 11.1 did in 2012.  Before that, to do stereoscopic 3D, you needed proprietary stuff, and that's a non-starter for PC games.

There have been some consoles that attempted it, most notably Nintendo's Virtual Boy and 3DS.  They flopped, however.

Originally posted by BadSpock

If it:

1. Can be worn with glasses

2. Has a quick hotkey to show me the real world without a moments pause (like if I need to answer my phone or pick up a coffee cup or see who entered the room etc.)

3. Doesn't track my head/eye movement - I want to aim/look etc. with the mouse/keyboard not give myself neck pain and muscle spasms

I may consider buying one for the immersion, as long as

4. it doesn't cost more than 100-200$.

(2)  is extremely unlikely.  It wouldn't be any easier to do that with the Oculus Rift than it would be to make any other computer monitor go invisible and let you see the wall behind it.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by BadSpock

If it:

1. Can be worn with glasses

2. Has a quick hotkey to show me the real world without a moments pause (like if I need to answer my phone or pick up a coffee cup or see who entered the room etc.)

3. Doesn't track my head/eye movement - I want to aim/look etc. with the mouse/keyboard not give myself neck pain and muscle spasms

I may consider buying one for the immersion, as long as

4. it doesn't cost more than 100-200$.

(2)  is extremely unlikely.  It wouldn't be any easier to do that with the Oculus Rift than it would be to make any other computer monitor go invisible and let you see the wall behind it.

External facing cameras with a quick button to swap from one view (in headset monitors) to external view.

There would be no need for such a thing on a computer monitor, so it's never been done and never will be. But it easily could be.

My cellphone can swap these views in the blink of an eye. Not at all impossible. It's very easy for me to use my phone (a monitor essentially for this purpose) to see through it at what's behind using the camera.

And like I said, it may be unlikely but it would be a requirement before I'd buy one.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by BadSpock

If it:

1. Can be worn with glasses

2. Has a quick hotkey to show me the real world without a moments pause (like if I need to answer my phone or pick up a coffee cup or see who entered the room etc.)

3. Doesn't track my head/eye movement - I want to aim/look etc. with the mouse/keyboard not give myself neck pain and muscle spasms

I may consider buying one for the immersion, as long as

4. it doesn't cost more than 100-200$.

(2)  is extremely unlikely.  It wouldn't be any easier to do that with the Oculus Rift than it would be to make any other computer monitor go invisible and let you see the wall behind it.

External facing cameras with a quick button to swap from one view (in headset monitors) to external view.

There would be no need for such a thing on a monitor, so it's never been done and never will be. But it easily could be.

My cellphone can swap these views in the blick of an eye. Not at all impossible. It's very easy for me to use my phone (a monitor essentially for this purpose) to see through it at what's behind using the camera.

And like I said, it may be unlikely but it would be a requirement before I'd buy one.

Ah, I didn't think of that.  And with the monitors almost right up against your eyes, it could be close to perspective correct for you, too.  It's guaranteed to be much lower resolution than what your eyes can see, though, so it wouldn't let you see the real world all that well.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by BadSpock

If it:

1. Can be worn with glasses

2. Has a quick hotkey to show me the real world without a moments pause (like if I need to answer my phone or pick up a coffee cup or see who entered the room etc.)

3. Doesn't track my head/eye movement - I want to aim/look etc. with the mouse/keyboard not give myself neck pain and muscle spasms

I may consider buying one for the immersion, as long as

4. it doesn't cost more than 100-200$.

(2)  is extremely unlikely.  It wouldn't be any easier to do that with the Oculus Rift than it would be to make any other computer monitor go invisible and let you see the wall behind it.

External facing cameras with a quick button to swap from one view (in headset monitors) to external view.

There would be no need for such a thing on a monitor, so it's never been done and never will be. But it easily could be.

My cellphone can swap these views in the blick of an eye. Not at all impossible. It's very easy for me to use my phone (a monitor essentially for this purpose) to see through it at what's behind using the camera.

And like I said, it may be unlikely but it would be a requirement before I'd buy one.

Ah, I didn't think of that.  And with the monitors almost right up against your eyes, it could be close to perspective correct for you, too.  It's guaranteed to be much lower resolution than what your eyes can see, though, so it wouldn't let you see the real world all that well.

Wouldn't have to.

Give me at least one front facing, and maybe two (one on each side) to at least give a panoramic view that approximates my "real" vision and I'd be happy.

Screens should be close enough to eyes anyway (like you said) to not mess with depth perception TOO much.

In fact I just tried it lol.

Shut one eye, put camera on cell phone on - held up as close to my eye (glasses) as I could without being too blurry, tried to pick up and manipulate various objects on my desk.

Not at all perfect, but was also still 3-4 inches from my eye and with one shut my depth perception was a bit off. Screens being closer in a headset, and one tuned left eye/right eye it could definitely work.