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.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, ebone260, in so many ways, this is how I see it:

I think the statement Palmer made is true that hand-tracking controllers were never part of the launch plan. But, I believe they also weren't ready for Valve to jump in so quickly with such high quality tracking features. Oculus had a vision, and right now they are trying their best to delivery that - as high quality as they can. The problem though, is users are starting to realize that Lighthouse is a superior tracking method, and easily gets you into room scale and back to a seated experience almost flawlessly. There is only so much polish, quality, and additional features that you can add to seated/standing only VR, until it isn't worth it compared to room scale/tracked controllers for VR.

As a business you don't want to be all over the place, changing designs, changing roadmaps, fragmented in different areas; it's best to stay focused and achieve your goal; but in this case Oculus is sorta pinned in a corner right now because they know room tracking is the future and Vive is already a step ahead of them. So now, they have to play catch up, but they just don't have a complete product yet that does room tracking well. In words from Palmer, he even admitted that he can't say for certain how Touch will compare to Vive's tracking because the hardware isn't even finalized yet - they are still in development.

Touch was probably meant for the next version HMD but now it's expected to come out with the Rift because the Vive has the lead with theirs. So to say they did not include the Touch because they think many users may not need it is a weak attempt to cover up the true reason why they weren't included; they weren't included because they aren't ready and new hardware may be needed to have Touch function properly - plus, it would significantly delay the release of Rift, to Fall 2016. Though, if what they said about the Xbone controller being basically a free addition from MS is 100% true, then I don't see why it matters that they included it in comparison to the Touch controllers, since they are focused on a seated experience as of now.

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.

In my judgement, Rift seems to be a fantastic, high quality product - there is nothing wrong with what it's trying to deliver to the user, though when competing for the VR experience it lacks some crucial features. Vive on the other hand delivers a robust tracking system, with a great store, and quality equipment. If what you want is to be immersed as much as possible, and experience VR to it's best potential, I strongly suggest getting a Vive.

[flyingsaucers]

"christopherbarnhouse" wrote:

"ebone260" wrote:
"But yet they force people to buy an XboxOne controller? That's even worse.

This has been covered ad nauseum, the xone controller added NOTHING to the cost.

Yes, it does. It's not as simple as "xb1 controller = +$25 to your checkout total" but in the grand scheme, it will add to the cost via licensing arrangements w/ MS that derail one roadmap in favor of another. If Oculus weren't bundling xbox pads, do you think they'd be launching Rift w/out Touch? Nope. They sure as heck aren't partnering with Sony or Razer or Madcatz, they're not building their own controller, and they're not releasing an HMD without an input device. Meanwhile, the staggered release of Touch means that, when it finally comes out, we'll all be paying more, if only because we're getting hit twice for shipping.

There's nothing for free in this business.

p.s. - if Palmer hadn't dropped that line about "forcing people to buy controllers they might not even be interested in," I'd be willing to cut him some slack. Just be real with us. You're forcing an xb pad on me because, in the long run, the licensing with MS is necessary to jumpstart VR. That's fine. I'm cool with that. But don't treat us like idiots.

[greeneblitz]

Some of you guys (OP), really have very simplistic views of the world and most of all business and how they work, in order to justify what ever weird bias against the rift that they have, I promise you, that there's a good reason for the Touch controllers not being ready to ship, Oculus has taken a very conservative and deliberate approach into every aspect of this launch, not over selling or over promising as compared to HTC Vive that promises, literally, just about everything to every one, has rushed through the development cycle when compared to Oculus, seems to have very little future plans past the CV1 Vive and mostly relies on "room scale" to push their product, which at this stage of VR is very much nothing more than something that's cool to show people for all of 10 mins or in a demo setting before they want to sit down and actually "play".

[christopherbarn]

"flyingsaucers" wrote:

"christopherbarnhouse" wrote:

"ebone260" wrote:
"But yet they force people to buy an XboxOne controller? That's even worse.

This has been covered ad nauseum, the xone controller added NOTHING to the cost.

Yes, it does. It's not as simple as "xb1 controller = +$25 to your checkout total" but in the grand scheme, it will add to the cost via licensing arrangements w/ MS that derail one roadmap in favor of another. If Oculus weren't bundling xbox pads, do you think they'd be launching Rift w/out Touch? Nope. They sure as heck aren't partnering with Sony or Razer or Madcatz, they're not building their own controller, and they're not releasing an HMD without an input device. Meanwhile, the staggered release of Touch means that, when it finally comes out, we'll all be paying more, if only because we're getting hit twice for shipping.

There's nothing for free in this business.

p.s. - if Palmer hadn't dropped that line about "forcing people to buy controllers they might not even be interested in," I'd be willing to cut him some slack. Just be real with us. You're forcing an xb pad on me because, in the long run, the licensing with MS is necessary to jumpstart VR. That's fine. I'm cool with that. But don't treat us like idiots.

Palmer has said it add nothing to cost. I'll take that over some random person on the internet making things up to confirm his own bias.

[Percy1983]

"soxfan335" wrote:


It's like they never talked to anyone smart in their lives or something.

You know that they say about people who think they know everything...

...they infuriate those of who do. :lol:

[DanteOne]

Feels like a honest review:
https://youtu.be/Oq5IyQOHFMw?t=1670

[ebone260]

"Percy1983" wrote:


1, Roomscale not an option
2, Lighter more comfortable HMD
3, Better screens/optics
4, Better hand controllers (Ok they are not in the box at launch
5, High quality integrated audio


Please tell me how my 5 points above are invalid.

Your points are valid. I just think that the Rift having a slightly better screen (supposedly) is not that big of a difference overall compared to the difference between Lighthouse tech and Oculus camera tech. I think the difference between screens will leave the user with a similar experience whereas the difference between tracking tech actually limits a lot of things that one headset can do.

I still think that 99% of people will want tracked motion controllers once they try them. Unless a visual solution like Leap Motion became super accurate first.

[ebone260]

"tranceology3" wrote:
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.

All of what you said is well put trance.

To add to the above Kinect, PSmove comment. You're absolutely correct that hand tracking in 2D in no way compares to hand tracking in VR. But another huge issue that I think people keep overlooking is Kinect, Wii, Move "failed" (eventually died out) because they weren't *super accurate* like the Lighthouse controllers/tech.

Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. Have you guys seen where people throw the controllers in the air (in VR) and catch them? Have you seen where people spin them super fast and they don't lose tracking? Have you guys seen where people are throwing objects high in the air and shooting them using down the sights aiming? Those things are a really big deal. They now allow us to do all of the things we'd hoped to do with the Wii, Kinect, etc. And now we can do them in VR which increases the excitement 20 fold.

I agree with you when you have a hard time understanding how that doesn't excite a VR fan.

[ebone260]

"greeneblitz" wrote:
Some of you guys (OP), really have very simplistic views of the world and most of all business and how they work, in order to justify what ever weird bias against the rift that they have, I promise you, that there's a good reason for the Touch controllers not being ready to ship, Oculus has taken a very conservative and deliberate approach into every aspect of this launch, not over selling or over promising as compared to HTC Vive that promises, literally, just about everything to every one, has rushed through the development cycle when compared to Oculus, seems to have very little future plans past the CV1 Vive and mostly relies on "room scale" to push their product, which at this stage of VR is very much nothing more than something that's cool to show people for all of 10 mins or in a demo setting before they want to sit down and actually "play".

>>>>Some of you guys (OP), really have very simplistic views of the world and most of all business and how they work

I have a great understanding of how business works. I own two businesses and my family owns 2 more that I'm very involved in. From a business and practicality standpoint Oculus surely does have reasons for what they have done. But dropping the ball is dropping the ball.

>>>>> in order to justify what ever weird bias against the rift that they have

With a comment like that you must be a true fanboy. I've been gaming and into tech,etc. for soooo long yet I still can't quite grasp the concept of being a fanboy. It's weird to me and I think fanboys sometimes strike me as borderline mentally ill. But I must be the mentally ill one since it seems 90% of the population are fanboys. So I'm in the minority....
I've had 2 DK1s and 1 DK2. I still have an Oculus on preorder. I'm still rooting for Oculus. I'm still rooting for Palmer. If it weren't for him we wouldn't be a few weeks out from getting premium VR headsets. I want the best for Oculus. That's why I said I hope they have a better tracking solution in mind or I hope they adopt the Lighthouse tech. I guess I am a fanboy....of VR. And having fun.

>>>>not over selling or over promising as compared to HTC Vive that promises, literally, just about everything to every one, has rushed through the development cycle when compared to Oculus, seems to have very little future plans past the CV1 Vive and mostly relies on "room scale" to push their product, which at this stage of VR is very much nothing more than something that's cool to show people for all of 10 mins or in a demo setting before they want to sit down and actually "play"

You say that and maybe you're right. But nearly every review I've seen says the complete opposite.

[soxfan335]

"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