Palmer:"Hand-tracking controllers never part of launch plan"

[ebone260]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/o ... unch-plan/

Hmm.

If this is true then I feel that it's a pretty big blunder on the part of Oculus. Remember I've been an Oculus guy since right after the kickstarter and promoted them to so many. I have preorders in for both the Rift and the Vive. I'm now looking forward to the Vive like a 6 year old waiting for Christmas while I'm not really excited about the Rift anymore. In fact the only reason I haven't canceled my Rift preorder is because I still have time to wait, with nothing to lose, to see how early reviews from consumers play out.

Have you guys watched and read as many of the extensive reviews of CV1 vs Vive (pre)that I have? It seems almost the overwhelming majority are giddy about the Vive and very lukewarm about the CV1. Yes I do realize that a lot of the enthusiasm is because they're seeing something new for the first time. Just like when we saw the DK1 for the first time. But the enthusiasm seems to be more than that.

I think the issue is that Oculus really came up short with their 'webcam' solution for the controllers AND the headset. At the same time Valve absolutely nailed the tracking solution. They nailed it for the headset and the controller.

IMO, having hand tracking is similar to what all of us DK1/DK2 owners have said, "there are those who love it and those who think they won't love it only because they haven't tried it."

Back to the article. Here's what I have trouble buying...
Palmer said Oculus didn't want to ""force people to buy [hand-tracking] controllers they might not even be interested in..."

But yet they force people to buy an XboxOne controller? That's even worse.

And if the hand tracking controllers aren't that important then why is so much of Oculus' GDC stuff devoted to Touch content? I see only 2 answers. They're lying or they *now realize how important the hand controllers are and how much people want them.

I know some of you don't want to get up and walk around. Look at the obesity rates....that's a given. But the hand controllers and the superiority of the lighthouse lasers aren't just better for walking around.

When the DK2 came out someone asked me, "why are they using basically a webcam for tracking?" I explained, fully believing it, that the webcam was only to rush positional tracking out to the developers so that they could have the feature in order to develop for it. I explained that there would absolutely be a better form of tracking in the CV. I fully believed that until the day the CV1 was announced with the webcam solution still intact.

Now there's NDA's 2 weeks before launch. Reports of tracking issues, naseau, ginger candy, occlusion inferiority,etc.etc.

You fanboys can get angry all you want but look at this logically. There's 2 premium headsets coming out that are going to be very comparable in quality. With the hand controllers the 2 premium sets will be similar in price. The Vive and Rift seated stuff will probably be comparable in most scenarios. The Vive controllers will definitely be better than the Rift's. The Vive roomscale experience will definitely be better than the Rift's. Why would someone choose Rift over the Vive? Then you add PSVR into the scenario. It will surely be technologically inferior to the 2 premium headsets but it looks like they've done a good job at creating some fun content that will be much cheaper if you already own a PS4. And the PSVR will have motion controllers.

So you're left with the choice of the 2 premium headsets at a similar price. One can do everything the other can do but can also do more. Or you get the cheaper easier alternative that will probably be appealing to many.

I hope Oculus swallows their pride and is working on a better tracking solution for the CV2. Or I hope that they've accepted that they need to license the lighthouse tech. I think that Oculus will still sell more headsets in 2016 because of name recognition but at this rate it could change quickly.

[christopherbarn]

For me, room scale is a subset of VR. It's not the end-all-be-all of VR. There is a huge swath of games the simply don't require roomscale.
I think Vive is getting a free pass from the press in regards to the cable - there are going to be people who trip and hurt themselves once the Vive gets out in the wild. Maybe next gen if they can get things wireless.
Then there's the issue of being confined to the room size. One review I saw where the guy is confronted with the real world wall while trying to pick something up. How in the hell does that not break immersion ?
The same reviewer was then playing some demo where he is doing the "transporting" thing and sometimes doesn't quite land where he thinks he's landing and ends up standing on a guard rail and it was really disorienting for him.
People seem to be all excited about room scale, but I think after they get over the initial wow factor the limitations of room scale will start to show.
This is like the Playstation 1 days of VR, so much more to come. Possibly new input controllers that are neither the "wooden spoons" of the Vive or the "hands" of the Oculus Touch.
Really getting tired of this pissing contest between fan boys and people posting all sorts of made up crap. If you like room scale , great ! enjoy ! ( but don't hurt yourself ).

[Anonymous]

"soxfan335" wrote:

"tranceology3" wrote:
I think as for the users who are all in for Rift, and are genuinely more interested in a seated experience than room scale, most likely have never tried VR (If you have and still want it, have you tried room scale? And if you have, then great, Rift is for you 🙂 ). The users that haven't tried VR certainly don't understand what VR is like, and they might still envision it as traditional 2D gaming. I can't tell you how many people try to argue that room scale is just a gimmick, and we have proof that standing up in games fails - they say, just look at Kinect, PSmove, etc... But the biggest misconception here is those tracking features were used in front of a 2D screen that you were limited to. VR is a whole new experience which opens up a whole new way we interact in games that is significantly enhanced with tracked controls/ room scale tracking. If someone honestly believes that less interaction in VR is better, then they honestly have never been in VR - it's completely illogical to say that, and you might as well not go in VR and go back to playing on a 2D screen, or use your HMD for 3D enhancement rather than transporting yourself into a virtual world.

That's quite a blanket statement, for me personally, it's not so much that I think room scale is a gimmick, but rather that room scale is gimmicky in its current form. That's also how I interpret most people who try to voice potential issues with roomscale in terms of useability. Granted, there probably are people who think as you said, but to say that everyone who expresses doubts thinks that exact same way, you have to admit is kind of ignorant.

It's too early in VR to be doing room scale quite honestly when there are much more presssing fundamental issues such as locomotion and motion sickness. By jumping the gun and offering room scale, some people see that as kind of a cheap way of winning over people to buy your product. Aka a gimmick

I have no problem with people having doubts about room scale; that is fully expected. And my statement about users who have never tried VR, not knowing what it is actually like, I think is very valid - you just can't envision it until you try it.

Also to say it's to early to do room scale honestly....why? As we have seen from many reviewers using it, they can't tell you how much fun it is. So it has some limits, but those limits don't stop it from doing what it does best - it immerses you, and lets you interact to a much higher level than ever before. Did we not embrace low graphic video games because we knew it was limited in processing power, and think we should wait until HD graphics were released...No. Because it was still amazing at the time, and very fun.

The big thing I think people need to ask is what are these HMDs/Systems trying to achieve?

Are they trying to convince you that the VE (Virtual Environment) is real?
Are they just trying to get you to play games in a new way?
Are they trying to be the VR that everyone dreams of?

Then, you need to ask yourself that question too. What do you WANT VR to be?

Do you wan't to be completely transported into a Virtual World?
Do you want to just kickback, and play some games in a new 3D perspective?
Do you want to just have pure fun, and laugh and be amazed every time you connect subconsciously in VR?

For me, I want to be immersed as highly as possible. After playing with the DK1/2 for many, MANY hours, I yearned for the ability to interact in VR. It was such a tease to only be able to look around in VR and to have to press buttons to do my functions. I wanted to interact, and I wanted to interact naturally. The Vive can offer this right now, and to me that is what I want. So to say that room scale is a cheap trick to try to sell the HMD is very ignorant in the fact that room scale is the bridge to a more immersive VR - why do you think all 3 big HMD companies are doing (will do) room scale?

Now talking about fun. I think mostly everyone who played the Wii will admit that they had pure fun when they first played with the system. Wii sports attracted so many people, and while the graphics were extremely inferior, it offered something that was just pure fun. Soon, the Wii lost it's core appeal, and I think it's easy to explain why: Because it could only do so much, it became repetitive, the controls weren't that accurate, it was EXTREMELY limited with it's motion controls. I believe the users that have tried VR believe that incorporating motion controls, and a tracked area will greatly enhance the experience, and open up a plethora of experiences/games to be developed and immersed in.

Now if you can show me a user that owns a Vive Pre, and he/she honestly, genuinely agrees that room scale at this state is just a gimmick, and does not enhance the experience because it will get old, and would rather not have the feature; then maybe it has more limitations than other users have experienced, maybe there is some truth behind it. But as of right now, I have not seen one video-review of room tracking that argues this, everyone who has tried it genuinely loves it.

[Percy1983]

Well room scale is in stage one of the Wii effect.

To me the biggest limitation is the fact its a room to which you can take a few steps in a few directions and then you have to resort to normal controls or immersion braking teleporting.

The best way I can think of it right now is if somebody offered me a Ferrari but I couldn't take it off my drive (about 3 cars length). It would be great I would drive to the bottom of the drive and back, rev it up, show all my friends, let them do the same.

But eventually the novelty will wear off and I will just walk past the Ferrari and off the end of the drive to explore something much bigger than my limited Ferrari can offer using that old boring control method I use to use... walking.

[edmg]

"Percy1983" wrote:
To me the biggest limitation is the fact its a room to which you can take a few steps in a few directions and then you have to resort to normal controls or immersion braking teleporting.

Bingo, The problem with room scale is that it's ROOM scale. It's great for 'stand in one spot and shoot things' games--assuming you can manage not to trip over the cord, knock over something valuable, or break your face when you hit the ground--but requires immersion-breaking movement interfaces for anything much more than that. And most people find those kind of games get boring after a while.

For 'room scale' to be viable for much else, you need a really big room. Like warehouse-sized, so you can play tricks with the player to make them walk around in circles while they think they're walking in a straight line.

And most of us don't have a warehouse to play in.

[DaftnDirect]

"edmg" wrote:

"Percy1983" wrote:
To me the biggest limitation is the fact its a room to which you can take a few steps in a few directions and then you have to resort to normal controls or immersion braking teleporting.

Bingo, The problem with room scale is that it's ROOM scale. It's great for 'stand in one spot and shoot things' games--assuming you can manage not to trip over the cord, knock over something valuable, or break your face when you hit the ground--but requires immersion-breaking movement interfaces for anything much more than that. And most people find those kind of games get boring after a while.

For 'room scale' to be viable for much else, you need a really big room. Like warehouse-sized, so you can play tricks with the player to make them walk around in circles while they think they're walking in a straight line.

And most of us don't have a warehouse to play in.

I disagree.
What you really need are games or experiences that make good use of, or adapt to small rooms, if that is the room you have. A good experience doesn't mean you have to run around... those are just the type of moving-around games that we're used to playing, i.e. FPSs. Room scale VR will consist of large spaces, small spaces and everything in between.

Adaptive games will be the big new thing in my opinion... games that recognise the size of your room and adapt the playing space accordingly. We've already seen this with the Portal demo and I think that size of the experience won't be limited by the size of your room, it'll only be limited by the skill and imagination of the developer.

[soxfan335]

Room scale is good for certain applications but it's not a cure all for VR. Things like dental/doctor training, cad/engineering and architectural apps will fit really well. I can imagine fighting games being great with it. I've always imagined a forza style horizon game where you can get out if your car and walk a little ways, say to the edge of a cliff and take photos, then walk back over to your car, get in, drive to the next locale, etc. I would imagine devs could also use this same concept with horseback and monsters or whatever instead of photos. Touch should also be able to handle those things as well, provided they solve the occlusion issues.

[DaftnDirect]

"soxfan335" wrote:
Room scale is good for certain applications but it's not a cure all for VR. Things like dental/doctor training, cad/engineering and architectural apps will fit really well. I can imagine fighting games being great with it. I've always imagined a forza style horizon game where you can get out if your car and walk a little ways, say to the edge of a cliff and take photos, then walk back over to your car, get in, drive to the next locale, etc. I would imagine devs could also use this same concept with horseback and monsters or whatever instead of photos. Touch should also be able to handle those things as well, provided they solve the occlusion issues.

I was thinking something similar with golf.
You only need a small space to walk around the ball in order to feel immersed... then you can have a real-life seat which becomes the golf cart in-game, you can either drive of be driven to where the ball lands... taking in the scenery along the way.

[soxfan335]

Exactly! I thought the same thig about golf, it's a perfect fit. This vehicle / small area hybrid method would be great for people with wheels and especially cockpits. I would imagine wires would be an issue.

[DaftnDirect]

"soxfan335" wrote:
Exactly! I thought the same thig about golf, it's a perfect fit. This vehicle / small area hybrid method would be great for people with wheels and especially cockpits. I would imagine wires would be an issue.

I think the game could employ some clever orientation control to fool you into keeping your turns to a minimum... or monitoring your turns so that it manipulates you into unwinding any wound-up cords.... well I suppose it'll never do away with the issue completely, but I suspect we'll adapt our behaviour and soon become subconsciously aware of where the cord is... maybe.

[bp2008]

Oculus has been dedicated to supporting gamepad VR games for years already. They aren't going to abandon this plan just because a few vocal people believe a different control system is superior in all ways.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... ew/czfy7j7

"palmerluckey" wrote:
We are bundling a gamepad because the vast majority of VR developers have been building around it for years, and most of them wanted to standardize input and make sure anyone with a Rift could play their game without needing additional hardware.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... ew/czg146g

"palmerluckey" wrote:
My vision does not include screwing over developers who have dedicated years of their life to making games for our product.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... ew/czg5z25

"palmerluckey" wrote:
If any particular group of developers should be rewarded, it is the developers who believed in VR from the very start, not developers who waited several years for motion controls and happen to agree with your personal opinion on what is best for VR. I don't think either group is going to be unfairly rewarded on the current roadmap, but you are suggesting it is okay to rig the game against most of our developers by delaying the launch of our headset to give an advantage to a handful games that started development less than a year ago.

(For more: https://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey)