Skip to main content
Up and Coming
January 13, 2014

Should Oculus bundle motion controllers with every Rift?

Hi there!

I've mentioned this a couple times back around September, but now that it's official that Oculus VR is focusing on a seated experience and that external optical tracking looks likely for CV1 i think it's become relevant again..

Also posted a comment on Reddit the other day, just thought i would create a new thread here to see if we can get a bit more feedback.
http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/1uw0nl/the_next_big_hurdle_for_vr_getting_your_hands_in

Here's a slightly edited version of my reply to the OP:
"PatimPatam" wrote:

Basically, i believe that the company in the best position to put our hands inside the game is actually Oculus VR itself.

I would love to have an affordable haptic feedback glove, but for the 1st generation of consumer VR i don't think we really need one; a motion controller similar to the PS-Move but where each finger rests in a separate analog button (with optional force feedback) should be enough to simulate our hands. For instance I can imagine it having the shape of a prism or a dumbbell, with several LEDs on both ends.

Having already an external camera for positional tracking this type of controller should be very cheap to produce for Oculus (basically just plastic, a few LEDs, a bluetooth transmitter, and one of the awesome IMUs they already developed to use inside the headset).

I think Oculus could perfectly bundle 2 of these controllers with every Rift sold, without adding more than $40 or $50 to the final price.

I know it may not sound like super-exciting high-tech at first, but the fact that EVERY Rift user would have the same VR input would make a MASSIVE difference. Developers could create VR games and applications with very intuitive interfaces from day 1 knowing that there is a standard input shared by all users.


And here's a very rough sketch i made to have an idea of what i mean. On top of that there should probably be a strap that goes around the back of your hand, so the controller stays in place even with the palm open.



Also optionally there could be a thumbstick instead of the thumb button, but i don't really think it's necessary since i believe avatar movement/rotation could be archived in more intuitive ways, like pressing a button and using positional tracking (lean forward to move forward for instance). Thumbsticks for movement have become quite standard between gamers but i don't think they are that intuitive for the average person.

More on that here:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=18694


Obviously the main technical difficulty with this solution would be how to differentiate controller LEDs from HMD LEDs. The more trivial approach would probably be using a visible spectrum camera instead of infrared and have different colors for each controller but that has it's own set of disadvantages.. anyway i think with the team of computer vision experts at Oculus this should be certainly doable.

I'm also quite certain that a system like this (if used at an optimal distance from the camera) could be much more accurate than alternatives like magnetic tracking (mainly due to the magnetic distortion problem).

At the same time systems like the STEM or PrioVR could still be useful for scenarios where the user wants to move around with more freedom within a confined space, or inside omni threadmills.


I've seen quite a few people complaining about the external camera solution.. Am i the only one INSANELY excited about it?? I believe this could potentially bring us one step closer to the Oasis console.

I honestly think this should be a no-brainer for Oculus, and actually i'm betting they already have some hand-controller internal prototypes; then again maybe i'm wrong :-)

Thoughts?


EDIT:

Like i mentioned later in this thread, if occlusion is too troublesome to sort out with only the existing front camera, a 2nd inside-out camera with a wide FOV could be used on the headset to help track the controllers. If the HMD is blocked by the controllers, the relative position between the external camera and the HMD could be calculated integrating the relative position between camera and controllers and the relative position between controllers and HMD.

Maybe this inside-out camera could be used at the same time for pass-through functionality similar to Gear VR. Obviously this would add both weight and cost to the HMD, but i don't see it as a show-stopper.

    132 replies

    Up and Coming
    May 13, 2014
    At 42:00 Dov Kats says they want to go up to room sized tracking for the consumer version.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxbh-TM5yNc
    So motion controllers would go naturally with that. Sucks to be a third party motion controller company.
    Participant
    May 13, 2014
    "mrmonkeybat" wrote:
    At 42:00 Dov Kats says they want to go up to room sized tracking for the consumer version.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxbh-TM5yNc
    So motion controllers would go naturally with that. Sucks to be a third party motion controller company.


    Good observation. Though that would imply that CV1 would be a standup, move around version which they said is
    due to safety reasons unthinkable.
    Also OVR is showing the press those stand-up, move-around holodeck demos. They leave us with big question marks for the future.
    Maybe they are working on a machine vision safety system. A system warning you every time you approach
    the staircase or the candle-holder. :lol:
    Obviously VR needs an extra insurance. Its a bit like climbing a mountain without safety rope.
    http://vrdisplay.blogspot.de/
    Up and Coming
    May 13, 2014
    "cerebral" wrote:
    Good observation. Though that would imply that CV1 would be a standup, move around version which they said is due to safety reasons unthinkable.

    Not necessarily, i think it makes total sense that they want to archive a bigger tracking volume, simply to accommodate playing in a typical, decent-sized living-room; sitting on the couch with a Steam machine and the camera next to the TV for instance (and maybe to track motion controllers as well, as monkeybat said).

    "cerebral" wrote:

    Also OVR is showing the press those stand-up, move-around holodeck demos. They leave us with big question marks for the future.

    I haven't seen any of these lately, quite the opposite (Eve Valkyrie, Epic strategy demo, Couch Knights), so it seems quite consistent to me with what they are saying so far..

    "cerebral" wrote:

    Maybe they are working on a machine vision safety system. A system warning you every time you approach the staircase or the candle-holder. :lol:
    Obviously VR needs an extra insurance. Its a bit like climbing a mountain without safety rope.

    I think moving around blind-folded and tethered is out of the question for now, but i hope Oculus change their mind and don't discourage standing-up play, as long as you don't move or turn around with your feet (like Sony is showing with their Morpheus demos).
    Up and Coming
    July 18, 2014
    Soooo, let me start by saying that i don't think this recent CNET article has any new info that we didn't know about; Oculus have been saying for a while that they are working on VR input, we just don't know when we are going to see it.
    http://www.cnet.com/news/oculus-to-ge-hands-on-with-new-virtual-reality-gear/


    Having said that, after some of the recent developments i think it's getting more and more likely that we will learn about OculusVR controllers fairly soon.. Wild speculation time!

    - Mounting a 2nd camera on the headset would add extra cost, but i think it's feasible now that they can sell the CV1 without making a profit (thanks to the Facebook acquisition). This would definitely help solving the issues with occlusion and having only one camera in front.

    - Recent acquisition of Carbon Design. Could be just for the HMD, but i believe the fact that they have designed controllers before is relevant.

    - Extra USB port on the DK2. Could be because they want people to experiment, but i think they may have a stronger reason behind it. This would allow Oculus to sell an add-on camera + controls for the DK2 so developers can start working on it.

    - Oculus Connect in September, perfect timing for a reveal. They could announce the DK2 add-on, just a month or two after developers got their hands on it. It could give us some time to add extra functionality before the release of CV1, or starting to make games completely designed for it.


    Obviously i could be totally off the mark in here, but fingers crossed! :D
    Participant
    July 21, 2014
    I'm not sure about bundling with the Rift but as for Oculus bringing out there own motion solution
    ABSOLUTELY 100% YES

    The more options and research i this area will only benefit VR and the end users experience and lead to better methods of interaction.

    And Based on the previous form of oculus seeking the best highest standards with the minimum cost I,m really looking forwards to seeing what options come out ,got my fingers crossed for a PS move sharpshooter equivalent
    http://alphawolf-uk.deviantart.com/ https://twitter.com/AlphaWolF_UK http://steamcommunity.com/id/j_alphawolf_76/ https://www.youtube.com/user/AlphaWoIFuk/videos http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/9198/ ?
    July 22, 2014
    There are quire a few solutions on developing a PS Move style controller - Saw one on kickstarter the other day.
    https://developer.oculusvr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10680

    But do not excite me much as I think they are too limited in terms of applications.

    Would much rather have a glove solution like Control VR but ideally have it much cheaper. Their reliance on inerital sensors vs. pure optics is a good start - but am put off by the cost. Hoping that we can use cheaper technologies for the sensors.

    My current fixation is the SONAR route.
    Not an expert - but would be good if hardware enthusiasts can get in touch with either of these companies to adapt their tech for VR:

    http://www.ellipticlabs.com/?page_id=3131

    http://www.chirpmicro.com/news.html
    Up and Coming
    July 22, 2014
    Summary:
    I agree with Brendan Iribe on this one - if Oculus goes with a rudimentary 3D control mechanism out of the box, it will instantly become a standard and both developers and consumers will be reluctant to abandon it for a partially adopted, probably more expensive, perfect controller in a few years time.
    Instead, Oculus should wait until it can develop the perfect 3D input device, knowing that any input device it releases will become the first standard of VR, and so won't need to worry about consumers or developers being reluctant to leave a previously dominant input device.


    ======================================================
    ======================================================

    Regarding the original question of this thread, I have a slightly different take on it.
    I actually agree with what Brendan Iribe was saying - that CV1 shouldn't have an official Oculus input device unless that device is 100% perfect. And here's why:

    Standards are hard to set, and hard to break. The easiest way to start a standard is to release it as a part of a new platform. For example, the QWERTY keyboard + mouse became a standard when desktop computers became the new platform. Everyone understands now that a QWERTY keyboard and a mouse is a really awful way of interacting with computers (wrong axis of operation, QWERTY being optimised for typewriters, yadayada), however the standard is virtually impossible to break.
    With VR, Oculus has the capability to set a new input standard, and the one that is originally released will be very difficult to break (that is to say, it will be very difficult to improve).
    Say Oculus comes out with some cheap sub-$100 motion controllers with several buttons on them for release. And say that they also come up with some method to achieve locomotion (whether that method is a thumbstick or some other input device). It will definitely add a LOT to virtual reality's impact, and mean that all VR content is initially created to take advantage of this natural input.
    However:
    It won't be great. It will be good to illustrate to everyone how cool VR could be. But think about how amazing stuff like PrioVR, Leap Motion, ControlVR, etc. is. The improvement from a hypothetical CV1-timed input device to a device like that (which would probably take place within 2-3 years of CV1's release), would be extraordinarily difficult. This is because hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people will own HMDs, with most of them probably being Rifts. Each of those people will have an input device that was released with CV1. Then Oculus announces its new input device - this one tracks all body parts with 100% accuracy in realtime, including fingers. It allows you to move around using your legs, and use your arms to interact with the world. It costs $185, and Oculus releases a public statement saying that it strongly encourages all developers to develop for this new input method, and to encourage consumers to upgrade their rifts with this new input device.
    Now in this hypothetical situation, say you're a bigtime AAA developer, who now has released several large-scale (100+ sized teams) games and experiences on the rift using the CV1 control mechanism. You know that the adoption of this new device will be limited to enthusiasts and those with the money initially, so uptake will be slow. So what do you do? You make your next game for the CV1 control mechanism anyway. In this way, the uptake of this new input mechanism, despite how critical it is for us to have completely perfect hand tracking as a minimum for truly natural input, will be significantly delayed - perhaps on the scale of 5 yearsish. Sure, 10 years ago a technology being delayed 5 years wasn't a big deal. But now, can you imagine how behind VR would be if it was held up for 5 years? The Rift's kickstarter was less than two years ago.

    Instead, consider the alternative:
    Oculus releases CV1 with no control mechanism. Things like STEM, PrioVR, ControlVR and Leap Motion will become used to some extent by developers. There will exist, after several years of a market like this (say 2015-2018), a certain significant subset of the PC VR community willing to think of it like this: A VR setup costs $4000: $2000 for the computer, and $2000 for the HMD and input devices. And so, there will be a small community of games for these kinds of setups - the games that require STEM, or ControlVR, or even both. But AAA titles won't touch it, because it's basically guaranteeing that you will sell fewer than half the units you otherwise would.
    Then after this period, Oculus announces that it will be releasing a new, fantastic control device that will be the last input device we will ever need, and it will be coming out with full integration with Unity, etc. etc, and bundling it with CV2. (note: a new input device couldn't be bundled with CV2 in the previous example because consumers would have both, and many developers/consumers would prefer to stick to a known input device, slowing adoption anyway)
    Because there will be no set standard, this new device, put into the hands of every developer and consumer with a rift, will instantly become universally adopted, allowing all developers to develop for it with confidence.

    You should read this bit too
    So what's the difference between these two situations? About 5 years.
    The thing is, VR is going to become the new platform regardless of how much of an impact it makes when CV1 is launched. The important thing is to make it as good as possible, as quickly as possible. I think that's what Oculus is trying to do, and that's why Oculus won't release an input device with CV1. It's also why Oculus can't say anything right now about the situation with control devices, as much as I'm sure they'd like to (to stop developers wasting their time implementing support for things like ControlVR and STEM), they just can't say anything until they know what's possible. At the moment they're probably still in the 'let's just try a bunch of stuff and see what works' phase - not something you can go announcing the general public about.
    Melbourne-based creative technologist. I flit between experimental AR/VR experiences, audiovisual electronics and full-stack web development. http://www.lachansleight.io
    Up and Coming
    July 22, 2014
    P.S. Regarding sonar, I think it's really really awesome and just might end up being the future of absolute 3D positioning to complement the data that comes from IMUs. I don't know enough about it to say whether it will be good enough to be the perfect solution, but the low power requirement and ease of simple integration should see it adopted in the mobile hardware market without too much fuss. And since eventually, all VR will be the mobile hardware market (i.e. self-contained HMD: I'm sure PC hardware will be at that point within 10-15 years), there's a good chance this tech will still be around and will have improved enough to do all the motion tracking for 3D input.
    But I don't think it's going to be good enough to use for the desktop-VR generation that we'll be dealing with for the next 5-10 years. I seriously hope it does get adopted by Samsung or Apple or some other mobile hardware manufacturer.
    Melbourne-based creative technologist. I flit between experimental AR/VR experiences, audiovisual electronics and full-stack web development. http://www.lachansleight.io
    Up and Coming
    July 22, 2014
    I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your premise.

    I think we can all agree that a perfect VR controller would be able to perfectly track our hands and our finger movements, ideally with some sort of haptic feedback and/or force feedback.

    However I believe that having an intermediate stage where we are able to simply track the position of our hands (like a PS Move or a Hydra, but without the occlusion and accuracy problems) would not make the transition to perfectly tracked hands and fingers harder but easier.

    Also i think that the initial experiences could be much more interesting and intuitive than using mouse/keyboard or gamepads, so the adoption rate would be higher and the whole industry would accelerate as a result.


    If we had a good, reliable and affordable 6DOF VR input standard it would be a step in the right direction, and we could start building a very compelling version of the Metaverse/Oasis right now, not in 5 years time.
    Up and Coming
    July 23, 2014
    Yeah I'm kinda of two minds about it as well.
    On one hand, you have a better initial adoption of VR, since everyone will be like 'WOW LOOK AT THE VISUALS, LOOK I CAN MOVE MY HANDS', but a slower adoption of ideal input. On the other hand, you have a less-good initial adoption, but you have a faster, stronger adoption of ideal input.

    The reason I lean towards the second version is that I'm 100% confident that VR will succeed completely and be the next platform, even if it takes a little longer, and I want it to be right the first time. The other reason is that VR is already impressive enough to take the world by storm. Considering that everyone who tries it already goes 'Oh my gosh...oh my...gosh...this is amazing!!!', even without any input at all, I don't think we have to worry about having a lackluster CV1 release.

    But ultimately it's a matter of opinion. Lucky for me, it looks like Oculus is of the same mind. ;D
    Melbourne-based creative technologist. I flit between experimental AR/VR experiences, audiovisual electronics and full-stack web development. http://www.lachansleight.io