cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Rift is not about games any more (for the time being)

Peteo
Level 4
I think I chastised some one else for posting this earlier (sorry). But it looks like they were right

http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/26/story-studio-oculus-vr-sundance/

If it sounds like Story Studio is the beginning stage of Oculus VR pivoting away from a focus on gaming, that's because it's partly true. Iribe admits that without a solid input solution for VR, there's still more work to be done to perfect the gaming genre and get it consumer-ready. As the technology currently stands, the viewer's main entry point and point of control in the VR space is Oculus' headset. Given that, he says that a near-term shift to entertainment makes sense for the company.

"The camera needs to be locked to your head. Your head movement needs to move the camera absolutely perfectly in sync," Iribe explains of Oculus VR's entertainment epiphany. "You need it all to work as close to human vision as possible. And the closer you get, the more comfortable it is. Suddenly, this caused us to rethink gaming as what we're after. And as we were rethinking it and we're making these demos, we were starting to make these experiences ... that felt a lot more like cinematic experiences than they did video games. And I think a lot of that is because we don't have VR input."
63 REPLIES 63

gagagu
Level 3
At the moment oculusvr was selled to facebook the focus ist switched from gaming to social media and entertainment. Thats the reason why they are looking for the right input device. Different games needs different input devices!
I believe if they won't release the oculus rift soon, anyone else did (competitive company). The technique isn't really hard to understand and rebuild. On the lowest level you only have a good display, some lenses, motion sensors and a kind of trackIR, nothing more.

Bugnguts
Level 3
"pittsburghjoe" wrote:
oh those poor poor developers having to support so many different input devices :roll:
if each company has an sdk ready to go then it's not a problem.
I say let the best controller win, INNOVATION

You may laugh but this is a big problem. This would be like Sony, MS, or Nintendo releasing a console and saying, "Some 3rd party developer will figure out the best controller."
I am working on some fun simple games to help kids learm their letters using Unreal 4. I want them playable on a tablet/phone and a PC. By far the hardest challenge yet is to have a UI that works well for both touch and keyboard/mouse. Oculus demos show the problem clearly, without input the are all experiences and not interactive games.
If you are still doubting the need for a basic input that ships with each CV1 and that input will take care of itself than read the numorous PC and console forums complaining about ports that don't work well because play controls don't work well.
These UI/input problems are bad enough between apps using a flat 2D screen how much worse will it be in VR?
I was going to procrastinate today, but it looks like its going to have to wait for tomorrow.

snappahead
Level 5
Oculus has confirmed that cv1 will have some type of input device. It just seems more and more likely that the input won't be the be-all solution they and we were hoping for but more of a middle ground solution. I'm still thinking something more along the lines of the stem system or maybe something like the Sony Move. THey seem to be hitting a wall a bit based on the way they've been talking lately, so something more practical like those may work best for the time being.
i7 3820 16 gigs of Ram GTX 780ti

NoxWings
Level 3
"Snappahead" wrote:
Oculus has confirmed that cv1 will have some type of input device. It just seems more and more likely that the input won't be the be-all solution they and we were hoping for but more of a middle ground solution. I'm still thinking something more along the lines of the stem system or maybe something like the Sony Move. THey seem to be hitting a wall a bit based on the way they've been talking lately, so something more practical like those may work best for the time being.


Nope, they haven't confirmed anything officially. EDIT: AFAIK

Actually Nate mitchel said in this CES that CV1 is probably not going to come with specific input.

If so, what I think he suggested maybe is some kind of DKInput, and maybe not in time for CV1

NoxWings
Level 3
I understand their decision to focus on filmaking and storytelling too.

- Content is probably easier, quicker and cheaper to create (than a VR game).
- They can market it to a way wider population target that interactive VR experiences / games.
- They have already everything that they need to enjoy it, and HMD, no specific input needed.

Everything is perfectly fine with it. But this statement has really warned me:
"Suddenly, this caused us to rethink gaming as what we're after."

Did he really said that? 😞

This sentence doesn't mean "diversification", both filmaking and games are the focus.
This sentence means a focus change and I'm afraid what this could mean for VR gaming now.

NoxWings
Level 3
"PatimPatam" wrote:
Ok let me just mention that when i said i was disappointed i was only referring to the apparent lack of VR input device for now, not referring to the new Oculus branch or to being more than just about games.

"pittsburghjoe" wrote:
oh those poor poor developers having to support so many different input devices :roll:
if each company has an sdk ready to go then it's not a problem.
I say let the best controller win, INNOVATION

Oh please :roll: It's not about the poor developers having to change a few lines of code in order to support a few different inputs; it's about having to make a completely different game if they don't have a minimum standard. It's about the games that they decide to create with the tools that they have available.

If you know that 100% of your audience is going to have a 6DOF input for each hand then you can make a game/experience that takes full advantage of that and explore the full potential of VR. Otherwise many developers will go for the minimum common denominator which is a standard gamepad controller, which is an awful input for VR. This does not inspire INNOVATION.

Oculus are in the perfect position to define a MINIMUM standard for input, they already have the tracking tech in place, they could easily make controls that basically accomplish the same as Sixense STEM (minus 360 turning) for about a 10th of the cost, and they could have perfect positioning of the hands relative to the head because it would all be the same tracking system.

At the same time other companies that produce genuinely better alternatives, like some amazing haptic gloves for instance, could still thrive. Also adapting games/experiences that already support hand tracking to these better systems wouldn't be so difficult.

I just think that if Oculus doesn't take advantage of their position to define VR input it will be a wasted opportunity, not just for the company, but for VR in general.


"bugnguts" wrote:
You may laugh but this is a big problem. This would be like Sony, MS, or Nintendo releasing a console and saying, "Some 3rd party developer will figure out the best controller."


"saviornt" wrote:
Personally, I feel that a "nunchuck" type of system, like the WII or STEM system combined with voice recognition are the best types of controllers, for now.


Completely agree with all of you. +1

MrMonkeybat
Level 3
As they already have the tracking camera it would make sense to have some "PS Move" type grips with IR LED patterns on them. I hope they bundle something like that and this talk about no input is just playing it safe with announcements. A nice complement to such a device would be some plastic pivot attachments that allow you to clip them on our desk as a flight stick or steering wheel. As the IMU and tracking LEDs in existing grips would sending the data this could make steering wheel and flight stick mounts quite cheap pieces of plastic.

Long term for body tracking depth cameras like konect/Nimble seem the better solution than straping on lots of trackers whenever you want to play. For full coverage you would probably need 1 Nimble type camera on the HMD for your hands, combined with 1 to 3 mid range depth cameras around you for your body. Pistol grips would still be desired for some kinds of games.

snappahead
Level 5
"NoxWings" wrote:
I understand their decision to focus on filmaking and storytelling too.

- Content is probably easier, quicker and cheaper to create (than a VR game).
- They can market it to a way wider population target that interactive VR experiences / games.
- They have already everything that they need to enjoy it, and HMD, no specific input needed.

Everything is perfectly fine with it. But this statement has really warned me:
"Suddenly, this caused us to rethink gaming as what we're after."

Did he really said that? 😞

This sentence doesn't mean "diversification", both filmaking and games are the focus.
This sentence means a focus change and I'm afraid what this could mean for VR gaming now.

Films are more mainstream, but the rift isn't. Its still going to be locked to a gaming pc which means it will always be niche. Once mobile catches up to where the rift is right now, the vr films will be able to actually get to the masses.

I seem to remember someone from Oculus saying input was a certainty, but I dont feel like trying to find it.
i7 3820 16 gigs of Ram GTX 780ti

MrMonkeybat
Level 3
"Twitchmonkey" wrote:
snip
However, I'm not sure the hurdles with VR film making are any easier to tackle, unless Carmack is an actual wizard I don't see a way for animated movies like we've come to expect out of Dreamworks and Pixar to be possible in VR for many years unless there is no movement and thus everything can be pre-rendered. Even then you're looking at I would imagine double the render time given the stereoscopy. To render a movie like that in real time at even 1 FPS, let alone at the 60+ FPS necessary for a good VR experience would be a technical marvel. I expect what we'll be seeing in the realm of VR film making for the foreseeable future is either passive experiences that can be pre-rendered, or game visuals that you just can't interact with.
snip


If you aim for the latest films that is true. But it you aim for the original Pixar film Toy Story that came out in 1995 then we have PC's a million times more powerful than the ones in use then. When they re rendered TS for 4k 3d on a single PC the render times where much shorter than the play times for the video. We can do that kind of Tessellation for smooth curves in real time now, the rooms where simple with few simple objects in them. If you compare Toy Story to a modern game like Shadow of Mordor with hundreds of Orcs on screen all of with individual faces which can be zoomed in on for cinematics close ups with large landscapes and trees in the back ground then real time graphics has well surpassed the first CGI films of the 90s.

If its all scripted events with no player movement then you can optimize ALLOT.

Disdroid
Level 2
It does make sense though. If they have trouble making games work right, they should be allowed to advertise the things that actually do work right. So while games may not be the only thing that drives the early adoption anymore, they certainly are and will always be a big part of the market around the Rift.
People tend to believe what they want to be true.