How can the OR do well in the market?

[Delryn]

I cannot wait for the Oculus Rift to come out. I love what it's doing, and I hope it succeeds. But it is just a peripheral. Time and time again I have seen peripherals fade into the dust.

Take, for example, the Razer Hydra:
- It got great support from Valve
- It's a precise instrument
- It's priced high, but affordable
- 250+ games are supported
- I will never ever buy one

My mouse and keyboard are just fine. If anything I'll invest money in a mouse, because I can use a mouse for anything.

Come to think of it, I can't recall a peripheral doing phenomenally well unless it's forced a la wiimote. Joysticks were going strong for a while, but they've been mostly phased out of main stream gaming. The Move has fallen flat, and the Kinect isn't doing much better.

The Oculus Rift seems to have done the first half of their job right. They have made an affordable, good performing product, and have made dev support their current priority. Now what can they do to insure consumers buy the product?

They will be listening to Dev feedback. That's a good start. More expos, also good. But this is still following the Hydra's path.

VorpX and VIREIO are also good.

What else? Retailer public demos? Massive expensive advertising? Those didn't help Kinect/Move much.

I think staying as far away as possible from the term "3D" is a good idea. The disappointments of Hollywood are still fresh in people's mind. Stick with VR.

Ideas?

[cybereality]

I think the key is getting developer support. If devs create custom content for the Rift (or port their old content) then I think a lot of consumers will be interested.

You mention the Hydra supported 250+ games, but those are all mouse emulated titles. The number of games with native support is like 3 or 4. And the native supported games are really cool.

So its all going to be about getting developers to add native support to their games. And with all the industry excitement surrounding the product, I think this will happen.

[NikoKun]

It may be a peripheral device, but it has some advantages when compared to other peripherals.
It's technically a "monitor" style device too, on top of being a input/control device. So the dynamics of also being a display, change the "gimmicky-ness" of being a peripheral. How exactly, I can't quite explain. lol
I think the Rift is actually very similar to your comment about buying a Mouse, but maybe that's because I expect to see many different uses for it. Not just in gaming.. If this new industry really kicks off, it could eventually change the whole PC-monitor relationship we've grown so accustom to, bringing a new way to interact with computers. But that's just my futurist speculations. heh

The Rift also happens to be a MAJOR game-changer, pun intended, in how we experience and play games. So much so, that it almost creates it's own unique genres. But it can also be added to many existing games, with some effort, so it has the potential to greatly enhance the experience of those games too. It's not just the wide FOV and head tracking, it's also how those aspects working together force changes in the way games are controlled. And it opens a whole new set of game-control schemes which could potentially make players even more skilled at those games.

Devices like the Hydra, are solely for input/control.. And while introducing motion controls to a game is neat and fun, it doesn't REALLY change the way you experience those games. You're still viewing it on a traditional screen, still using relatively traditional ways to control view and movement, and the only added immersion is that you've now converted a mouse-movement/button-push, to an arm-movement. I'm not insulting the Hydra by any means.. But it's really not on the same level as the Oculus Rift. And the Rift could potentially be used WITH something like the hydra, making it almost like the "platform", and the hydra the peripheral. lol

There's a level of "something new" about the Rift, which makes its chances for success a lot harder to predict by comparing it to other devices.

And as Cybereality just said.. A LOT of its success is dependent on the game developers. Whether it's big devs, or small indi devs, we are all gonna have to make great games that support the Rift, and do it WELL.. And it'd also greatly help if as many already-out games can add decent support for it, because most gamers are starting fantasizing about playing their favorite games with it.

[MSat]

As already stated, the Rift and the Hydra really are nothing alike (though they can definitely compliment each other!). The Hydra slightly changes the way the game is played - detrimental for the most part - while the Rift changes the way games can be experienced. Plenty of gamers and developers know what a VR HMD could bring to the table, and if they're any good, they will sell themselves. Many gamers want to be immersed in another world, and the Rift goes a long way to accomplish that, while the Hydra on its own doesn't. Gamers want this. Developers want this (as gamers). If Oculus provides the hardware and tool support each party needs, then they should have little trouble being successful.

[Paladia]

A 3D graphics card was also just a gimmick until 3DFX was released, which ended up forever changing the way we look upon games.

I think VR has the potential to do the same and out of all the VR being released, Oculus has the best shot at doing it.

As for never buying the Hydra, I'm considering it just to be able to play Clang, which looks to be the coolest experience thus far if combined with the Rift.

[Delryn]

I think the key is getting developer support. If devs create custom content for the Rift (or port their old content) then I think a lot of consumers will be interested.

You mention the Hydra supported 250+ games, but those are all mouse emulated titles. The number of games with native support is like 3 or 4. And the native supported games are really cool.

So its all going to be about getting developers to add native support to their games. And with all the industry excitement surrounding the product, I think this will happen.

It's a sort of chicken and egg problem. Consumers won't buy without dev support, devs won't develop without a consumer base. Obviously you have to start with devs, but it requires a leap of faith on their part. OR can help this with a friendly API, and good demonstrations. They seemed to have nailed both.

About the Hydra, you're right that the 250 game support was shoe-horned in. But this isn't all that different than what VIREIO and VorpX aim to achieve. It's not going to hurt, but as much as I appreciate what you and VorpX are doing, the OR needs Dev support to thrive. I think we all agree there.

It may be a peripheral device, but it has some advantages when compared to other peripherals.
It's technically a "monitor" style device too, on top of being a input/control device. So the dynamics of also being a display, change the "gimmicky-ness" of being a peripheral. How exactly, I can't quite explain. lol
I think the Rift is actually very similar to your comment about buying a Mouse, but maybe that's because I expect to see many different uses for it. Not just in gaming.. If this new industry really kicks off, it could eventually change the whole PC-monitor relationship we've grown so accustom to, bringing a new way to interact with computers. But that's just my futurist speculations. heh

With this in mind, I would like it if the OR worked with my desktop on some level, even if it's just a 2D screen.

The Rift also happens to be a MAJOR game-changer, pun intended, in how we experience and play games. So much so, that it almost creates it's own unique genres. But it can also be added to many existing games, with some effort, so it has the potential to greatly enhance the experience of those games too. It's not just its wide FOV and head tracking, it's also how those combine aspects force changes in the way those games are controlled. And it opens a whole new set of game-control schemes which could potentially make players even more skilled at those games.

I agree, and judging by the CES response from the media it might very well be a game-changer. I hope it is.

Devices like the Hydra, are solely for input/control.. And while introducing motion controls to a game is neat and fun, it doesn't REALLY change the way you experience those games. You're still viewing it on a traditional screen, still using your mouse or joystick to move and control view, and the only added immersion is that you've now converted a mouse-movement/button-push, to an arm-movement. I'm not insulting the Hydra by any means.. But it's really not on the same level as the Oculus Rift. And the Rift could potentially be used WITH something like the hydra, making it almost like the "platform", and the hydra the peripheral. lol

The controls concern me. It's going to be a combination of head tracking and mouse/thumbstick. It's going to be layered on top of the traditional control scheme, and that will be a problem fundamentally. I'm hoping that devs implement an ArmA TrackIR type solution where the head moves independently of the body.

There's a level of "something new" about the Rift, which makes its chances for success a lot harder to predict by comparing it to other devices.

And as Cybereality just said.. A LOT of its success is dependent on the game Developers. Whether it's big devs, or small indi devs, we are all gonna have to make great games that support the Rift, and do it WELL.. And it'd also greatly help if as many already-out games can add decent support for it, because most gamers are already fantasizing about playing their favorite games with it.

Already released games are not going to get much OR support. That's where VEIREO and VorpX will come in and pick up the slack. Cybereality will have to let us know if Mirror's Edge makes you hurl or not.

[Delryn]

A 3D graphics card was also just a gimmick until 3DFX was released, which ended up forever changing the way we look upon games.

I think VR has the potential to do the same and out of all the VR being released, Oculus has the best shot at doing it.

As for never buying the Hydra, I'm considering it just to be able to play Clang, which looks to be the coolest experience thus far if combined with the Rift.

There were also dedicated sound and physics cards. Those were gobbled up by the motherboard and Nvidia respectively. While physX is nice and I appreciate whenever it's integrated in a game, I wouldn't want that to happen to OR. That segments the user base in half.

[Bishop51]

The Rift will succeed for three primary reasons. First of all because it will be the first full-featured, legitimate, consumer level VR device out of the gate, with all the right technical solutions. Second reason is that they seem to be targeting an appropriate pricepoint (rumored to be in the $300 & $400 range) which is competitive with better quality monitors. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is a strong initiative to bring independent developers into the fold for software support. The developer kit product pathway was an absolutely brilliant move, a risk that most corporate interests would neglect due to proprietary tech and internal development politics.

I believe that devices like the Razer Hydra and Leap Motion will have a new influx of support due to the ripples of success Oculus creates. These peripherals take on an entirely new meaning and a shift in context with the advent of true Virtual Reality.

[Delryn]

Instead of the Hydra, lets compare this to current implementations of 3D gaming.

It requires a 120hz monitor, and NVidia's glasses (if we're going with their shutter solution).

Why has 3D gaming not caught on, and why would OR succeed instead?

It's a different experience, VR vs 3D, but most users won't realize this until they can try it. People distrust 3D, and that's a tough obstacle to hurdle.

[SartreFan]

Instead of the Hydra, lets compare this to current implementations of 3D gaming.

It requires a 120hz monitor, and NVidia's glasses (if we're going with their shutter solution).

Why has 3D gaming not caught on, and why would OR succeed instead?

It's a different experience, VR vs 3D, but most users won't realize this until they can try it. People distrust 3D, and that's a tough obstacle to hurdle.

I think the general problem with 3D has been a content issue with movies and compatibility issue with games. Plus some games benefit a lot more from 3D than others. I have a 67" 3D DLP television that I cannot just plug in to a 3D bluray player without a $400 adapter that I refuse to purchase. All of my 3D gaming is done through a large PC that I have to take into my living room and set up. And even then there are pitfalls with the experience. It is a great experience when playing Left4Dead for example, but most times I just end up playing games on my computer monitor. If all of my games were as great of an experience as Left4Dead I would probably do it more often. I know this isn't a common inconvenience for 3D in general, but I think another great part of the Rift will be convenience. If it's as easy as just plugging in the headset and putting it on to play without major technical hurdles I think the average consumer will adopt this tech rapidly. Especially if the experience is as great as all the media has hyped it to be. I am guessing though that not all games that are currently out will work fantastically with the rift, I think that is something we need to expect now. And hope that there will be enough VR specific content in the near future to get this tech off the ground and into the main stream of gaming. Really the biggest issue with 3D so far has been inconsistency with the quality of experience. Some games play great in 3D, some don't benefit much at all. Some movies look great in 3D, some look worse. I think VR has the potential to be a more universally pleasing user experience and one that doesn't feel incrementally different from what we can get from a television or computer monitor. 3D is a tack-on while VR is a completely different experience

[Delryn]

I think the general problem with 3D has been a content issue with movies and compatibility issue with games. Plus some games benefit a lot more from 3D than others. I have a 67" 3D DLP television...

I want your wallet

...that I cannot just plug in to a 3D bluray player without a $400 adapter that I refuse to purchase. All of my 3D gaming is done through a large PC that I have to take into my living room and set up. And even then there are pitfalls with the experience. It is a great experience when playing Left4Dead for example, but most times I just end up playing games on my computer monitor. If all of my games were as great of an experience as Left4Dead I would probably do it more often. I know this isn't a common inconvenience for 3D in general, but I think another great part of the Rift will be convenience. If it's as easy as just plugging in the headset and putting it on to play without major technical hurdles I think the average consumer will adopt this tech rapidly. Especially if the experience is as great as all the media has hyped it to be. ...

OR will definitely solve your problems you were having getting your TV to work with the 3D device, but NVidia made it very easy for devs to integrate 3D support into their games. There wasn't a whole lot to it. OR will not have it so easy in that regard.

...I am guessing though that not all games that are currently out will work fantastically with the rift, I think that is something we need to expect now. And hope that there will be enough VR specific content in the near future to get this tech off the ground and into the main stream of gaming

All we need is a few devs to get it right, and the rest to copy them. Again, I think the ArmA TrackIR solution would be the best bet. Realistically users will be limited to 180-degree turn, and making the avatar's torso remain stationary while the head turns will give us the fixed point of reference we need. This is what Hawken will do, but that benefits by having a cockpit in the game.

[snorelab]

Here's the difference Delryn. How many novels have you read or movies have you watched that speculate about the transforming effect and endless possibilities of virtual reality? This is something that is in our cultural DNA. People want it badly. It's up there with jet packs and flying cars. VR is higher on the list than jet packs and flying cars for me.

The first real step on the path to full immersion, 5 senses virtual reality is audio/visual VR. The Rift gets us there, at least in the ballpark.

Think of the hydra or the kinect or a 3D TV in comparison to that.

If the Rift does supply a solid audio visual virtual reality experience it will sell.

[Delryn]

Here's the difference Delryn. How many novels have you read or movies have you watched that speculate about the transforming effect and endless possibilities of virtual reality? This is something that is in our cultural DNA. People want it badly. It's up there with jet packs and flying cars. VR is higher on the list than jet packs and flying cars for me.

The first real step on the path to full immersion, 5 senses virtual reality is audio/visual VR. The Rift gets us there, at least in the ballpark.

Think of the hydra or the kinect or a 3D TV in comparison to that.

If the Rift does supply a solid audio visual virtual reality experience it will sell.

I really hope so, but people won't realize this until they try it. While the Rift will be affordable, it's still not something you need, in the same way that you need a screen, keyboard, and mouse. Also VR has failed miserably in the past. I'm not saying the Rift will fail, but I'm saying consumers who remember the virtual boy and the like will be skeptical at best.

If the CES media impressions translate to consumer impressions, and our minds are just completely blown away by the experience, then, I agree, the Rift will be in good waters.

[STRZ]

How can the OR do well in the market?

You mean survive in the years to come?

If they stay independent and not depend on possible future competitiors like Microsoft and their technologies that much, building their own ecosystem or using the ecosystem of similar minded companies who stand on their own feet as well like Valve. They could complement each other well. With Valve promoting the Rift as unique selling point for PC/Linux Steam opposed to next-gen consoles and providing a easy accessible system even for people who are used to consoles.

Convince Unity, Epic and others to port their developer tools to Linux if they aren't doing it already, to avoid that future competitor like Microsoft does politics in his own favor hurting Oculus at some point in the future. Take in mind that Microsft is playing at opposed fronts, consoles and the PC market and could play in a way to boost the sales of another, making the people migrate to their console for gaming.

Moving slowly to openGL and open standards for graphics, sound etc. will be benefitial because it's not under control of a possible competitor. VR needs to be pioneered anyway, why not starting in an independent environment as well?

Valve is already creating a nice Linux backbone for gamers, the graphic drivers got a lot better (some Valve games even running much faster on Linux Steam now than on Windows). Performance is critical for Oculus because better performance means that you pay less for a machine and appeal to a wider range of people. It's not in Microsofts interest to make gaming on a PC as efficient as on their console, their interest is that you have to pay a lot more for a PC capable enough to have an advantage over consoles.

[Mystify]

This may not be a popular stance here, but 3d is not that great. adding a bit of depth to a screen is rarely convincing or immersive, and generally ends up being extremely gimmicky. People don't want gimmicky, and hence they steer away from VR. I'd even go so far as to call most 3d media false 3d. yes, you have a different image for each eye, but the effect it exaggerated and doesn't really correspond to real distances.
In contrast, the occulus rift is not about being 3d for the sake of 3d. Its about immersion, which happens to include 3d. It should be much easier for people to accept "I put on the rift and it looks like I'm someplace else" than "I put on glasses, and I see something 3d".
Look at how many peple *tried* the 3d though. I'd say most of them. They then disliked it and rejected it, but the idea was compelling enough to get people to try it, even with memories of the silly red/blue 3d.
Give people a chance to try the rift, and they will. Then ,judging by the reactions people seem to be having to the rift, they will understand what is so cool about it. I think giving people that chance will be important. Convince stores to have a demo model. Hope people show it to their friends.

[PasticheDonkey]

Here's the difference Delryn. How many novels have you read or movies have you watched that speculate about the transforming effect and endless possibilities of virtual reality? This is something that is in our cultural DNA. People want it badly. It's up there with jet packs and flying cars. VR is higher on the list than jet packs and flying cars for me.

The first real step on the path to full immersion, 5 senses virtual reality is audio/visual VR. The Rift gets us there, at least in the ballpark.

Think of the hydra or the kinect or a 3D TV in comparison to that.

If the Rift does supply a solid audio visual virtual reality experience it will sell.

I really hope so, but people won't realize this until they try it. While the Rift will be affordable, it's still not something you need, in the same way that you need a screen, keyboard, and mouse. Also VR has failed miserably in the past. I'm not saying the Rift will fail, but I'm saying consumers who remember the virtual boy and the like will be skeptical at best.

If the CES media impressions translate to consumer impressions, and our minds are just completely blown away by the experience, then, I agree, the Rift will be in good waters.

virtual boy wasn't VR is was just bad 3D. it couldn't even run a pseudo 3d engine like outruns.

[PalmerTech]

The Move has fallen flat, and the Kinect isn't doing much better.


What else? Retailer public demos? Massive expensive advertising? Those didn't help Kinect/Move much.

You might feel that Move and Kinect are not being utilized to their full potential (I would agree), but they are actually doing incredibly well in the consumer market. Kinect has sold well over 20 Million units, and Move has sold over 15 million. If Oculus shipped even 1% of that, we would be be doing pretty well. It would also make the Rift the best selling HMD of all time.

We have a great SDK, support from major developers, and a fantastic team of people that are pushing the limits of what can be done in VR. The current developer kit is only a shadow of the future potential of virtual reality, and it still blew people away, from average people to jaded tech journalists. If the mass market turns out to not want VR, I would be very surprised.

[SartreFan]

The Move has fallen flat, and the Kinect isn't doing much better.


What else? Retailer public demos? Massive expensive advertising? Those didn't help Kinect/Move much.

You might feel that Move and Kinect are not being utilized to their full potential (I would agree), but they are actually doing incredibly well in the consumer market. Kinect has sold well over 20 Million units, and Move has sold over 15 million. If Oculus shipped even 1% of that, we would be be doing pretty well. It would also make the Rift the best selling HMD of all time.

We have a great SDK, support from major developers, and a fantastic team of people that are pushing the limits of what can be done in VR. The current developer kit is only a shadow of the future potential of virtual reality, and it still blew people away, from average people to jaded tech journalists. If the mass market turns out to not want VR, I would be very surprised.

I can't speak for the mass market, but when I was 10 years old I tried a Virtuality setup playing Dactyl Nightmare and I never forgot it. 15 years later I bought a SU2000 unit and wished for something newer and better, for VR to catch up with technology. Just 5 years after that it looks as if it's finally happening and I hope the best for the future of Oculus and VR in general. It's nice to finally be excited again about VR's potential.

[Namielus]

This is my plan on how to help the OR do well in the market;

I assume more people than me are going to dedicate time to help make Oculus successful.
I have put aside all other obligations for the next year and will be working on making this successful full time.
Not only because I am developing content, but also because I am going to be working on actually having
people try it and spreading the news.

(I do not recommend quitting your job , if you are not in a financial situation where that is within reason tho)

Simply showing it to people is going to mean a lot. As we all know from CES; You cannot be told about the Oculus Rift !
I will be filming tons of these demonstrations and try to capture peoples reactions, and put it up on youtube/vimeo etc.
This will also help get people more interested in at least trying the thing.

Actually got myself a new car just to be able to hog all the computers/gear needed to show off multiple rifts at a time
Already at this point I would like to be selling various equipment for VR from my website(in development), and bring kits to sell
anywhere I demonstrate them.

However, given Oculus stance on dev-kits being for developers and not a consumer product, I will probably not be selling any kits unless someone is really insisting. When the future Oculus Rift consumer version comes, I will speak to Oculus about how that can work in the future.

On my website, I want to put together affordable packages for specific needs, as well as sell everything
as single products. Things like haptic feedback devices, racing cockpits, and all other peripherals Imaginable.
I will be focusing mainly on the Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

BTW, speaking of different setups I have ordered an incredibly low priced racing seat that seems really sturdy and only costs 260dollars. If it turns out to be good, its going to be a great peripheral for racing games+ Rift

[PasticheDonkey]

if it doesn't take off then i'd just learn to program better and make my own stuff for it.

[cybereality]

Yeah, the Dactyl Nightmare on Virtuality was my first taste of VR when I was a kid. Nothing has even been able to match that experience nearly 20 years later.

Well nothing up until the Rift, at least.

[PasticheDonkey]

last one i tried was really heavy, laggy, low FOV, low res and very simplistic graphically compared to even other stuff at the time. it was some biplane game. anyway the weight and lag made you not want to move your head around.

[Delryn]

You might feel that Move and Kinect are not being utilized to their full potential (I would agree), but they are actually doing incredibly well in the consumer market. Kinect has sold well over 20 Million units, and Move has sold over 15 million. If Oculus shipped even 1% of that, we would be be doing pretty well. It would also make the Rift the best selling HMD of all time.

We have a great SDK, support from major developers, and a fantastic team of people that are pushing the limits of what can be done in VR. The current developer kit is only a shadow of the future potential of virtual reality, and it still blew people away, from average people to jaded tech journalists. If the mass market turns out to not want VR, I would be very surprised.

Full disclaimer: I am not trying to sound like a doom-sayer, predicting the Oculus Rift's demise. I just want to think of the problems other peripherals face so that the Rift flourishes. It's for purely selfish reasons! I want to see everything that VR can let me experience.

You're right. When I say Kinect isn't doing well, I mean purely from a utilization standpoint. It's a fact that it pushed many units, but buzz for the kinect these days has dropped to about zero.

I believe this is because of two things:

a) The tech just isn't good enough for full 3d motion capture. It's laggy and often imprecise and inaccurate.

Based on the CES reactions, Rift is a mind blowing product in the making. Those reactions from "jaded tech journalists" is what got me so excited about VR becoming an important part of my gaming hobby. I have full confidence in the tech... as long as the resolution can be increased

b) Peripherals suffer primarily from one simple fact: Not everyone has it. Developers don't want to code functionality for a Kinect if the majority of players/fans aren't going to use it, or don't have it. If a person is going to buy your game, it's probably not because it has kinect functionality. This leads to half-hearted attempts at implementing a peripheral. They're just being cautious.

Now, the Rift has some advantages over this peripheral problem. For one, the experience is intuitive, if you can imagine more intuitive than a plain screen. Motion controls should be this way, but they've always been wonky.

Another thing, like Palmer said, it has a great SDK and dev support. This is very important, and one of the major factors that made the 360 a success.

I want the Rift to become the normative in gaming. If it pushes a bunch of units but loses momentum like the Kinect, I will be very sad.

-changing gears-

During the demos I often heard that devs need to make a game with Rift in mind. This is important, but difficult. Devs will want to play it safe, and try to save as much money as possible. I think to overcome this barrier, we need that one game that shows how amazing the Rift can be. I'm putting my money on Hawken to be this game. The cockpit makes VR a natural fit. Plus the game is free to play.

[Delryn]

This is my plan on how to help the OR do well in the market;

I assume more people than me are going to dedicate time to help make Oculus successful.
I have put aside all other obligations for the next year and will be working on making this successful full time.
Not only because I am developing content, but also because I am going to be working on actually having
people try it and spreading the news.

That is quite a lot of dedication. If Oculus LLC was wealthier, I suggest they pay you for your effort.

Word-of-mouth and viral marketing will be more important to sell this than most products. This is a see it to believe it product, and that makes marketing more difficult. I for one already have plans to invite my co-workers and the video gaming club from my old university to try mine out when I get it.

I'm this || close to ordering a dev kit and showing the tech demos to everyone I can, but I want to save the limited resources of dev kits for actual developers. Also I must resist the urge to show the unfinished product, as the consumer version will be even better.

[PasticheDonkey]

even if a motion controller is accurate lag free with simple and accurate calibration, it'll still tire you out, if it wants too much action from you. the rift wont.

[Delryn]

even if a motion controller is accurate lag free with simple and accurate calibration, it'll still tire you out, if it wants too much action from you. the rift wont.

Oh God. I haven't even considered what will happen when someone sues because the Rift gave them whiplash.

Edited my earlier posts. Misspelling VIREIO. Sorry Cybereality!

[Namielus]

Delryn, I am pretty sure I can generate income myself selling peripherals and selling my software.
But hey! I never say no to moneys.

[PasticheDonkey]

even if a motion controller is accurate lag free with simple and accurate calibration, it'll still tire you out, if it wants too much action from you. the rift wont.

Oh God. I haven't even considered what will happen when someone sues because the Rift gave them whiplash.

it's not a problem. the musculature for looking around is better trained and less tiring than say for playing ping pong for a long time.

[STRZ]

That is quite a lot of dedication. If Oculus LLC was wealthier, I suggest they pay you for your effort.

Oculus could make a deal with people commiting themselves showing off the device in their private homes and maybe giving them a bonus for every customer who buys a Rift afterwards (asking the customer where he demoed it when ordering). They could have theoretically people in every city of the world where people could demo the device. People then go to the Oculus website and inform themselfes where to go for a demo, and providing a contact link to those people in the list.

I know a vendor of highend hi-fi speakers who has a similar business model. If i wouldn't have been able to demo my speakers, i wouldn't have bought them. Much better than demoing in a busy store!

[Direlight]

More people should try 3d GAMING. The movies are hit and miss (on 3d quality) and you can't individually calibrate them. I had a Nvidia kit and after I learned how to correctly adjust it, I got amazing results. I could adjust the convergence and have things popping out multiple feet. Example:
Playing Mass Effect 2 and adjusting the camera's view, I got extremely "visceral" close ups of Miranda's body suit. Shutter glasses are the best thing I've ever bought. I get poor depth perception in real-life, so things looked almost magical for me.

[PasticheDonkey]

More people should try 3d GAMING. The movies are hit and miss (on 3d quality) and you can't individually calibrate them. I had a Nvidia kit and after I learned how to correctly adjust it, I got amazing results. I could adjust the convergence and have things popping out multiple feet. Example:
Playing Mass Effect 2 and adjusting the camera's view, I got extremely "visceral" close ups of Miranda's body suit. Shutter glasses are the best thing I've ever bought. I get poor depth perception in real-life, so things looked almost magical for me.

i just find 3D from depth annoying which it the only option i have for a lot of games. good 3D is great tho and will be even better on the rift where things are actual size as well.

[MSat]

I'm this || close to ordering a dev kit and showing the tech demos to everyone I can, but I want to save the limited resources of dev kits for actual developers. Also I must resist the urge to show the unfinished product, as the consumer version will be even better.

While I can't speak for Oculus, I would think that the more "dev kits" that they sell, the more beneficial it would be for them since the tooling has already been paid for by the kickstarter campaign. As far as I can tell, there's not a limited number of devices they can produce. If there's a demand, then they will supply it. At QuakeCon, John Carmack stated that the dev kits were not necessarily just for developers but VR enthusiasts that wanted to be on the cutting edge of the tech. Whether you fit any of that description is for you to decide.

[LikeMike]

You know what it needs to do? It needs to work - that's about it.

That means nothing should break the immersion (so positional tracking is a must, good game support as well) - and it can't make people motion sick. If the Rift delivers on that, I have now doubt that it will be not only a success but also the start of a new era.

Word of mouth is important, media exposure is important. I work for a national TV news program - something like the Rift is definetly something we could be covering (actually we briefly thought about it at Gamescom) and I am pretty sure a lot of others would as well, just like they did with the Wii. Tis is not a new peripheral, this is something new and at the same time the beginning of the realization of a 30 Year old dream. That is a good story - and people being immersed wearing funky goggles, that's a good picture.

And people will get excited about this - many will want to try it out, and if they enjoy it as much as the journalists so far did, they will want to own one.

So as long as it works and delivers a truly immersive experience, I am sure this will succeed...

[Fredz]

You're right. When I say Kinect isn't doing well, I mean purely from a utilization standpoint. It's a fact that it pushed many units, but buzz for the kinect these days has dropped to about zero.

That's always the case after a product has been released, there is a lot of buzz before and during launch, not so much after that. As for the utilization, it's simply correlated to games sales. Dance Central sold 2.5 million copies worldwide and Dance Central 2 sold 1.6 million copies. Hardly a failure I'd say.

The tech just isn't good enough for full 3d motion capture. It's laggy and often imprecise and inaccurate.

My experience is quite different, I often play with a lot of friends on Kinect games (Dance Central for now), just like I did with the Wiimote on the Wii. Precision and accuracy are more than sufficient for games I've been playing with so far.

Peripherals suffer primarily from one simple fact: Not everyone has it.

As others have already said, the Rift is not a peripheral but a display, just like 3D TVs, monitors or projectors.

Not anyone owns one, but there is a market for them judging by the popularity of this very 3D forum, other websites dedicated to 3D and the release of Blu-ray 3D movies and 3D games on all the major platforms (PC, PS3, Xbox).

In the case of the Rift as with any devices of this kind, content is king. If 1) the experience is appealing and 2) there is content available, I see no reason why it wouldn't become a success. For 1) the various reports from E3 2012 and CES 2013 show that it's clearly the case. For 2) it's a matter of time after the launch of the devkit, to see if the quality of the experiences delivered by developers can provide 1).

Developers don't want to code functionality for a Kinect if the majority of players/fans aren't going to use it, or don't have it.

I think it's only a matter of return on investment. Kinect games are often a lot simpler than classic games so they cost less to produce, even if less people buy them compared to more mainstream games, a benefit can still be made. A game doesn't need to appeal to everyone, it just needs to find its public.

If a person is going to buy your game, it's probably not because it has kinect functionality. This leads to half-hearted attempts at implementing a peripheral. They're just being cautious.

I pretty much think the contrary. As people bought Wii games specifically for Wiimote support, people buy some Xbox games specifically for the Kinect support. People who never played games before fit completely in this category, because these input schemes make the games a lot more enjoyable to them.

[PasticheDonkey]

The tech just isn't good enough for full 3d motion capture. It's laggy and often imprecise and inaccurate.

My experience is quite different, I often play with a lot of friends on Kinect games (Dance Central for now), just like I did with the Wiimote on the Wii. Precision and accuracy are more than sufficient for games I've been playing with so far.

things like dance central might as well not be tracking you. you don't get judgable feedback. they could play a video and give a random score at the end and most wouldn't notice. kinect is like old VR it's current faults make it not useful at all. but the tech with higher precision and better software to interpret that information could be good eventually.

[STRZ]

People who never played games before fit completely in this category, because these input schemes make the games a lot more enjoyable to them.

Most people who bought those "activity kinect games" could be linked to the group "i want to be entertained while working out, overcoming my weaker self". The main reason for them is losing weight while beeing entertained, less the game or experience itself.

[Fredz]

things like dance central might as well not be tracking you. you don't get judgable feedback. they could play a video and give a random score at the end and most wouldn't notice.

You've never played this game I guess, you've got a direct feedback of your movements in the top corner of the screen, rendered as a 3D model.


I've tested the accuracy of the skeletal rendering and it's pretty good. There is a bit of lag for sure, but it's really not a problem while playing. I've never heard any of my friends complain about it for now, not even remark it.

kinect is like old VR it's current faults make it not useful at all. but the tech with higher precision and better software to interpret that information could be good eventually.

Not useful for VR at this point, but useful for many other usages. A little bit less lag and it would be a perfect solution for skeletal tracking in VR.

Most people who bought those "activity kinect games" could be linked to the group "i want to be entertained while working out, overcoming my weaker self". The main reason for them is losing weight while beeing entertained, less the game or experience itself.

I'm not talking about the Nike game here, I'm talking about a dancing game, the goal is not to loose weight but to have fun. Heck, I've been a sportsman for many years (triathlon, soccer, squash, etc.) like most of my friends, the idea of loosing weight hasn't even once crossed my mind...

[PasticheDonkey]

things like dance central might as well not be tracking you. you don't get judgable feedback. they could play a video and give a random score at the end and most wouldn't notice.

You've never played this game I guess, you've got a direct feedback of your movements in the top corner of the screen, rendered as a 3D model.

if it showed it's skeleton interpretation rather than the point cloud data i'd believe it.

[oculusfan]

Here is some differences:

3D games/movies: Play one, then go back to 2D. Realize that experience largely the same.

Oculus Rift: Play an OR game, go back and play a non OR game. Non OR game feels like step backwards....lesser experience.

Razer Hydra: Been there done that with Wii. Got burned by Wii. Not even going to bother with Hydra.

Oculus Rift: Never been done, brand new experience. Got burned by Virtual Boy in 1990s but it has been 20 years.

[PasticheDonkey]

Here is some differences:

3D games/movies: Play one, then go back to 2D. The user doesn't get the feeling that they are missing out or getting a lesser experience.

Oculus Rift: Play a game, then go back and play a non OR game. The user will feel that they are getting shafted on the experience because OR wasn't supported.

Razer Hydra: Been there done that with Wii. Got burned on Wii. Not even going to bother with Hydra.

Oculus Rift: Never been done, brand new experience. Got burned by Virtual Boy in 1990s but it has been 20 years.

i have enough experience with 3D films/games now that i do think and feel that something that is 2D would be better in 3D. i wish that in the 50s they hadn't cheapened out by using cinescope to draw more patrons rather than continuing with 3D, so that so many more things would have been 3D.

wii remote is better with motion+ but that wasn't supported so well. the hydra suffers from not being a big enough thing to have games made around.