My Theory: Dev Units Will Be Higher Rez Than 1280x800

[PalmerTech]

My worry is not that another company will come in and beat us with superior technology, if they manage to do that, kudos to them! What worries me is that someone else will come in with a strong patent portfolio and try to shut us down only to never actually bring their own tech to market. Even worse would be if they try to make VR big by using their size and marketing muscle to push a solution that is inferior to the Rift, a mainstream push for "bad" VR could kill the industry again.

We are working on patents, but not because we plan on going after other companies. It is because in court, regardless of what is "right", a company with 20 worthless patents is certain to win over a company with 0 patents. Like others have said in this thread, everything in the Rift has been done before, usually patented and expired by now.

[brantlew]

I hate that patents work this way. I've been in the software industry for almost 20 years now and have been part of the patent process at least half a dozen times. And not once was a patent being filed to protect intellectual property. Every single time it has been a strategic decision - an arms race against other companies in case they decide to sue you.

[WiredEarp]

I have an idea that patent rights should be enforced by the government, not civil courts, and that patent holders should be compelled to license their inventions at reasonable rates set by an overall agency (like FRAND for all). This would encourage people to patent (as they no longer will need to litigate personally to enforce their patents) and also encourage innovation (by preventing patent holders preventing people using their tech). Unfortunately the idea gets a bit more complex when you start thinking of the specifics, but the general concept (encouraging patents, and access for all to the knowledge in them) is good IMHO.

[2EyeGuy]

We are working on patents, but not because we plan on going after other companies. It is because in court, regardless of what is "right", a company with 20 worthless patents is certain to win over a company with 0 patents. Like others have said in this thread, everything in the Rift has been done before, usually patented and expired by now.

Maybe we should get working on trying to stop you... Let's think about everything you could invent and invent it first (we probably have already) and provide prior art...

But the obvious questions are why is it like that, and how do we fix that? Why are the courts so absurdly far away from what is "right"? It's not some inviolable law of physics that we can't change. People set the system up that way, and surely people can change it to something that works better.

[Emax]

I think these smartphone patent wars make it really obvious that the system is not working anymore and even doing the opposite of what it was intended to do. The situation with apple vs samsung (does not matter how you feel about each company) is clearly showing that patents can be used to restrict the customer’s choice, make products more expensive and hold back progress by restricting competition.

If these wars are getting worse, the pressure on the government to react on it will increase. Hopefully this will happen soon.
The only pressure on big companies at the moment is the fear of bad publicity.
Not much but at least something.

[Fredz]

But the obvious questions are why is it like that, and how do we fix that? Why are the courts so absurdly far away from what is "right"? It's not some inviolable law of physics that we can't change. People set the system up that way, and surely people can change it to something that works better.

Unfortunately lobbies are a lot more efficient at imposing their will than individuals (even organized) are at fighting them. Last time software patents resurfaced again in the EU the individuals won, but it was a though battle and it could happen again at any time.

[gravity360]

My worry is not that another company will come in and beat us with superior technology, if they manage to do that, kudos to them! What worries me is that someone else will come in with a strong patent portfolio and try to shut us down ...

Got a case of the "Apple" jitters I see. Can't blame you. Patent trolls are just stifling the tech sector in so many ways.

[Balor]

If you patent your invention and then say: "It is free now! Anyone can use it, no charges involved!" - this is not evil. And even it is in your book...
If you don't patent it, then someone else comes along, patents it instead and then sends out some bulk 'cease and desist' mail - that would be a bit stupid, right? I'd take evil over stupid any day. Evil at least benefits someone. Stupidity is hurtful to all .

[2EyeGuy]

I'd take evil over stupid any day.

That's just you. The majority of people would take stupid over evil any day. The difference in preference of evil over stupidity is mostly genetic. As much as I hate to admit it, it's probably useful to have some people who prefer evil over stupid, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[bobv5]

Evil is a matter of opinion. If I have interpreted Balor's post correctly, then what he calls "evil" would likely be called good by a lot of us.

Anybody know how open source the Rift is actually going to be? If Rift does get patent banned, it is completly unenforcable if the full tech specs, lens designs, panel specs etc are freely available. It would suck for Palmer and crew, but non US countries could churn out as many as they wanted. I can't speak for other countries, but illegal clones are freely available, openly sold in main street shops, in UK.

[PalmerTech]

Game developers won't support illegal clones, though.

It does not make sense for us to try and keep the design much of a secret once we release, people can always just take one apart themselves and get all the info they need.

[Additives]

Game developers won't support illegal clones, though.

It does not make sense for us to try and keep the design much of a secret once we release, people can always just take one apart themselves and get all the info they need.

To be honest, I just want to support the best experience for my customers. It has been proven time and time again that inferior VR solutions aren't even worth the paper they were designed on.

I really hope Oculus are, if not the company providing the best experience, then heavily involved with whoever is making it, and to be honest, I expect this to be the case at least until the mainstream adoption of VR. That said, I wouldn't be disappointed if another company came out with an improved version of the Rift. It would mean that a large company had taken enough interest in VR to sink excessive amounts of money into developing something EVEN BETTER than the Rift, and whatever release Oculus has been working on would still probably be coming soon, and likely to be yet another improvement.

[Balor]

Evil is a matter of opinion. If I have interpreted Balor's post correctly, then what he calls "evil" would likely be called good by a lot of us.

Anybody know how open source the Rift is actually going to be? If Rift does get patent banned, it is completly unenforcable if the full tech specs, lens designs, panel specs etc are freely available. It would suck for Palmer and crew, but non US countries could churn out as many as they wanted. I can't speak for other countries, but illegal clones are freely available, openly sold in main street shops, in UK.

Yea, I meant that IF you consider patents evil, it would still be unquestionably better to patent it and then release to the public - to prevent others coming up with with inferior product and then shutting you down on legal grounds.

But otherwise, Evil (benefit to yourself at other's cost) is indeed more hurtful to humanity in the long run (purely from mathematically point of view, of course) then Stupidity (sheer destructiveness at no benefit to yourself - or even cost to yourself).
After all, 'humanity' is a sum of all it's parts - and you yourself is included. In fact, many of those who got their money by less then savory means later got straitened up and even turned to charity. A CEO of a small software company comes to mind .

[Bishop51]

My worry is not that another company will come in and beat us with superior technology, if they manage to do that, kudos to them! What worries me is that someone else will come in with a strong patent portfolio and try to shut us down only to never actually bring their own tech to market. Even worse would be if they try to make VR big by using their size and marketing muscle to push a solution that is inferior to the Rift, a mainstream push for "bad" VR could kill the industry again.

We are working on patents, but not because we plan on going after other companies. It is because in court, regardless of what is "right", a company with 20 worthless patents is certain to win over a company with 0 patents. Like others have said in this thread, everything in the Rift has been done before, usually patented and expired by now.

Don't blame you one bit on that one Palmer. Having dealt with patent issues myself, you are doing the single best thing possible to secure Oculus RIFT and future related technologies from the patent leeches out there!

In terms of that big unnamed company vomiting out a bad VR experience (cough, Sony, cough, cough), given how timid they seem to be with their marketing, I'd say that's not a big concern. You've got a critical mass of developers behind you early and I think that's the real winning strategy here. Keep that core happy, keep innovating and maintaining an inclusive ecosystem, you'll win this battle. Lets face it, Microsoft, Google, Sony, Nintendo, are all too chicken-s*it to really take VR by the horns and give an uneducated public a truly compelling experience. They'll dabble for 5 years in a painfully slow and safe rollout of non-immersive Augmented Reality, within the smartphone and console market but they'll completely miss a growing wave.

Fully immersive VR is where the money is...they're just too stubborn, too short sighted to know it yet.

[sergehag]

Current gen consoles lack and possibly even next gen consoles will lack the gpu horsepower to run 3d at good resolutions for vr with good frame/refresh rates. Putting out a vr solution by these companies for the PC would only push people out of consoles market into PC gaming causing them to lose money.

[Owen]

There is always enough GPU power to do stereoscopy at full resolution and framerate. It just won't be able to have as much detail or as many objects as it would in mono, no matter how good or bad your hardware is.

[brantlew]

There is always enough GPU power to do stereoscopy at full resolution and framerate. It just won't be able to have as much detail or as many objects as it would in mono, no matter how good or bad your hardware is.

I agree. I think it's a good trade to give up graphic quality for immersiveness.

[Namielus]

I imagine even minecraft will be immersive and feel real. Only this reality is made out of very blocky pixelated particles.

[cybereality]

Rumors are that PS4 dev kits are already floating around, and are designed to handle 1080P @ 60Hz 3D.

[sergehag]

I've only used my 60 hz TV for gaming. Is there a big difference with 120 hz? I read somewhere that in 60 hz 3d you would see flickering.

[cybereality]

I've only used my 60 hz TV for gaming. Is there a big difference with 120 hz? I read somewhere that in 60 hz 3d you would see flickering.

I have a 120Hz monitor and, yeah, it looks smoother. Maybe not as big a difference as going to 30 to 60Hz, but its noticeable. Most active 3D displays run at 120Hz but 60Hz per eye in 3D. So when you see people talking about 1080P60 3D, it means the display is actually running at 120Hz. Anything less than this can (and does) look choppy and the flicker can give some people headaches.

Passive displays usually stay at 60Hz, but since they split the pixels they are still able to produce 60Hz per eye. Since there is no shutter-glasses, passive displays do not have any flickering problems, and look as smooth as a normal 60Hz 2D monitor. It would be great if some company would make a passive 120Hz monitor, but no one has done this yet.

[Additives]

I imagine even minecraft will be immersive and feel real. Only this reality is made out of very blocky pixelated particles.

I think people have been undervaluing Minecraft on the Rift. I'm way more interested in something that I will never (outside a few million dollars worth of novelty lego blocks), ever be able to experience in real life than a familiar setting. Sure, there are plenty of things within the bounds of this physical universe I can't do, or shouldn't do, but I don't think it's wise to ignore the possibility of more abstract realities.

I also think minecraft will be a good fit as an actual game to play on the dev rift, given the low resolution/high contrast world, very little UI text etc. I really hope the dev's support it, but I guess if they are too slow to move on it I can always see if I can write a shader for the GLSL shaders mod. I don't really have any experience, but with the SDK on hand by the time I get my Rift I would hope it can't be too hard A mod to make the UI work better for the OR and dev support might not be needed.

[WiredEarp]

I'll just jump in and say that while VR is about emulating reality, popular VR will most likely only be based on reality. There is no entertainment value in simulating the reality we are in - people really want to experience something that 'feels' real, but lets them do things they cannot in this reality.

Therefore, I would not be surprised at all to discover in a few years that the most popular VR apps do things like accelerate your walking speed, give you long distance jumping ability, etc, moving away from realism, towards perceived reality. Really, we are aiming for a device that will let us live our dreams, while we are awake.

[Owen]

I think that extraneous differences from real reality will still hurt the experience.

Sometimes the abstraction is a conscious choice that sets the tone for the game world, such as in Minecraft. But when a game is meant to actually take place on Earth people have expectations about how things will look and behave, and any differences will serve as a persistent reminder that this isn't the real world.

I am not saying that those differences shouldn't exist, only that they should be added for a specific gameplay or storytelling purpose. In fact, keeping as much of the world real as possible will lend more importance to those differences. Take flying for instance, having the power of flight in something resembling the real world is far more compelling than in an abstract space where objects and terrain have no root in human experience. I want to fly around the Golden Gate bridge because I have seen it from below and wondered what it would be like from above. Anything less than a fully realistic rendering of it would be a disappointment.

Films are compelling for the same reason, we have a strong attachment to the real world, and are best able to develop attachments to real people. Seeing those things in impossible or unlikely situations is the basis for most fantasies.

[WiredEarp]

Very true Owen. I guess we need to attain reality, so that we can leave it

[Bretspot]

Hey I was right about something,
That 5.6" screen was really hard to source, so they ended up with a 7" screen. Too bad it wasn't higher rez than the 5.6" though!
But hopefully it does leave more room in the shell for an "easy upgrade" path to a 1080p (or something) screen.

Cheers, good work Oculus!