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.

[Hiro_Protag0nist]

"edmg" wrote:

"TheDynamo" wrote:
That like saying people with surround sound setups don't like putting satellite speakers up around their living room or putting a big flat screen on their wall.

No, it's like saying people with surround-sound-capable TVs don't like putting speakers up around their living room.

They just don't.

I've had 7.1 speakers on my PC for nearly twenty years, and only just got 5.1 speakers for the living room because they're now wireless and I don't have to run cables everywhere. I can just plug the rear speakers in behind the sofa and leave them there.

It's this simple: the vast majority of people do not want to rebuild their house around playing games. I'm not sure why this is considered controversial.

Completely agree. It just won't happen.

[Anonymous]

"edmg" wrote:

"TheDynamo" wrote:
That like saying people with surround sound setups don't like putting satellite speakers up around their living room or putting a big flat screen on their wall.

No, it's like saying people with surround-sound-capable TVs don't like putting speakers up around their living room.

They just don't.

I've had 7.1 speakers on my PC for nearly twenty years, and only just got 5.1 speakers for the living room because they're now wireless and I don't have to run cables everywhere. I can just plug the rear speakers in behind the sofa and leave them there.

It's this simple: the vast majority of people do not want to rebuild their house around playing games. I'm not sure why this is considered controversial.

Why do you keep saying that mounting the lighthouses will be a huge issue. You can easily get a stand, or just set them on a shelf or something... You can even put them on the floor (which isnt optimal tracking) but it still somewhat works. You can also just set them on your desk, just like the Rift camera and get a seated experience exactly the same as Rift...if not better. This whole argument is easily solvable.

[PassiveVR]

"andyring" wrote:

"edmg" wrote:

"TheDynamo" wrote:
That like saying people with surround sound setups don't like putting satellite speakers up around their living room or putting a big flat screen on their wall.

No, it's like saying people with surround-sound-capable TVs don't like putting speakers up around their living room.

They just don't.

I've had 7.1 speakers on my PC for nearly twenty years, and only just got 5.1 speakers for the living room because they're now wireless and I don't have to run cables everywhere. I can just plug the rear speakers in behind the sofa and leave them there.

Completely agree. It just won't happen.

It already IS happening. Get with the times. I would hate to have you and the other guy in charge of what tech we are allowed to enjoy based on your extreme narrow mindedness*

*Fanboyism because rift doesn't do it yet. When it does, you'll be there raving about it with the rest of us. :lol:

[Zoomie]

"PassiveVR" wrote:
Next you'll be saying nobody wants to go to the trouble of investing in high end GPUs to run these things

You mean like PSVR?

I do agree that the first generation of Rift and Vive users are undoubtedly high-end PC gamers. However, both HTC and Oculus are trying to bring VR to as large a market as possible - eventually. It won't survive purely as an elite gamer niche market.

I have large rear speakers in my living room because I want the best sound possible. Still, those all-in-one systems are popular because there are people who value convenience over having the best sound money can buy.

At this point we're not sure whether the average user will want to use VR for room scale. It's a neat concept and I'm sure it's a blast, but are we certain that it won't be overshadowed by something like the OMNI? Why only do room scale when you can have unlimited movement in any direction? Tracking would certainly become very simple.

[Syrellaris]

"Zoomie" wrote:

"PassiveVR" wrote:
Next you'll be saying nobody wants to go to the trouble of investing in high end GPUs to run these things

You mean like PSVR?

I do agree that the first generation of Rift and Vive users are undoubtedly high-end PC gamers. However, both HTC and Oculus are trying to bring VR to as large a market as possible - eventually. It won't survive purely as an elite gamer niche market.

I have large rear speakers in my living room because I want the best sound possible. Still, those all-in-one systems are popular because there are people who value convenience over having the best sound money can buy.

At this point we're not sure whether the average user will want to use VR for room scale. It's a neat concept and I'm sure it's a blast, but are we certain that it won't be overshadowed by something like the OMNI? Why only do room scale when you can have unlimited movement in any direction? Tracking would certainly become very simple.

Unless devices like the Omni become a lot smaller then they are now, I don't see them becoming really popular. Not to mention the high costs of such devices. Paying 1000 for a HMD is one thing, but 1200+ for a controller? No thanks.

[edmg]

"Syrellaris" wrote:
Unless devices like the Omni become a lot smaller then they are now, I don't see them becoming really popular. Not to mention the high costs of such devices. Paying 1000 for a HMD is one thing, but 1200+ for a controller? No thanks.

How much smaller do you think the Omni can be? It's enough space to run on the spot with a guard rail around it, which is about the absolute minimum space you could use for such a device. It's quite heavy, but probably has to be to support your weight and not slide around when you're running on it.

And it's cheaper than the traditional treadmills in the local stores here. That's one reason I'm thinking of buying one.

[Percy1983]

"PassiveVR" wrote:


*Fanboyism because rift doesn't do it yet. When it does, you'll be there raving about it with the rest of us. :lol:

I can already tell you I have no interest in room scale, it isn't because of the decision to buy a Rift I say this. I made the decision to buy a rift because I say this.

Now I have your attention and we are talking about ignoring or denying things due to fanboyism.

Which headset is lighter?

Which headset is more comfortable?

Which head set has better screens/optics?

Tell me a gesture the Vive wooden spoons can do that you can't do with a touch controller (I can tell you 2 you can do with a touch controller you can't do with the wooden spoons).

Tell me how many holes I need to put in my walls to run my rift, or how many stands I need to buy.

Off you go and no selective answers to just the questions you like.

PS this is not me saying the Rift is absolutely better this is me asking you to acknowledge that Oculus has actually done some things better than HTC.

As I can say as a know fanboy I can give acknowledge both systems have advantages and logically explain my choice, of course as you aren't a Vive fanboy you will have no trouble doing them same will you?

[edmg]

"Zoomie" wrote:
At this point we're not sure whether the average user will want to use VR for room scale.

Anyone who knows people knows that most won't want to clear out their living room every time they want to play a game. Just as they won't want to screw lasers on the wall of their living room just to play a game.

Gaming is a niche market. VR is a niche in gaming. Roomscale and treadmills are niches in VR. All of these products are aimed at different people, yet some seem to believe that just because they've found The One True VR, everyone else MUST feel the same. Their choice is THE BEST EVAH, and anything else just sucks.

Back in the real world of running multi-million-dollar companies, they understand that there are multiple different markets, and that they need to design a product for the market they're aiming to sell into, or they'll go bust. Which is why cameras are a better fit for consumer products like the PSVR and Rift, while lasers work better for an enthusiast system like the Vive, which sells to people who will be OK with screwing them to their living room walls.

[Syrellaris]

"edmg" wrote:

"Syrellaris" wrote:
Unless devices like the Omni become a lot smaller then they are now, I don't see them becoming really popular. Not to mention the high costs of such devices. Paying 1000 for a HMD is one thing, but 1200+ for a controller? No thanks.

How much smaller do you think the Omni can be? It's enough space to run on the spot with a guard rail around it, which is about the absolute minimum space you could use for such a device. It's quite heavy, but probably has to be to support your weight and not slide around when you're running on it.

And it's cheaper than the traditional treadmills in the local stores here. That's one reason I'm thinking of buying one.

Honestly, quite a bit smaller then the current design and a lot lighter too. I don;'t know what type of treadmills you are looking at but a quality treadmill for running, walking incl incline costs around 300-500, not 1200+.(They are bigger though)

Mind you, I am not against these things. In fact I think they are a great first step into furthering VR as a whole.

[DaftnDirect]

"Syrellaris" wrote:
Honestly, quite a bit smaller then the current design and a lot lighter too. I don;'t know what type of treadmills you are looking at but a quality treadmill for running, walking incl incline costs around 300-500, not 1200+.(They are bigger though)

Mind you, I am not against these things. In fact I think they are a great first step into furthering VR as a whole.

Completely off topic but if anyone is planning on buying a running treadmill, bigger is better, you need to develop a relaxed running style and the increased area helps big time... also avoid thin belts and small motors, they just don't last.