I am truly surprised at the lack of enthusiasm on this thread.
The Oculus is the FIRST high-fidelity consumer VR experience.
And they've got the horsepower of Facebook's cash-machine as their bankroll.
Zuck gets this to the degree that I suspect he believes Facebook & VR will be synonymous within a decade (1)
Do I wish that Oculus was owned by some benevolent billionaire trickster like OASIS in Ready Player One? Sure, but come off it!
This release will mark the starting line of the change in how we interact with computers, how we capture memories, how we tell stories.
Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine.
Already in the DK2 I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
. . .
Really though, I have had some shocking experiences in the Oculus, starting with the DK1 going off the edge of a rollercoaster and feeling my stomach physically drop.
Yes this is a generation 1 product for early adopters.
Yes it's going to be expensive to buy, it won't be perfect.
But if you're browsing HN because you're a hacker / developer / dreamer you are crazy to discount how substantial this release is (especially if you haven't TRIED it yet!).
I've played with a DK2. It was cool. But reasons not to be super-excited are:
1. Hardware requirements are steep (GTX 970 minimum), so plenty of hardware -- including plenty of hardware that's good for high-end gaming today -- won't be good enough for this.
2. Only Windows support. No compatibility with Linux, SteamOS, or even OSX means that the techie enthusiasts who'd play with it as a tech toy are going to be less interested.
3. But biggest of all: The games aren't there. It's become very clear, both from playing with the DK2, and listening to presentations by Valve and Oculus people, that VR games can't just be regular games with VR bolted on. "Skyrim, but with VR" sounds cool, and makes for a cool five-minute demo, but will just make you sick and be unsatisfying in the long term.
VR games need to be designed for VR in a really fundamental way. It's not clear that there are any interesting games that do this, or that there's a lot of effort going toward making games like this.
If this were a product that were coming out from Nintendo, I'd be confident that they had a good idea about how to adapt their franchises to take advantage of VR in a really cool way, and that there'd be at least a handful of games that made it an absolute must-have. But from Facebook... well, they're a tech company, not a gaming company, so they're depending on someone else to make the games that will justify this thing. Maybe that'll work in the long term, but right now, it doesn't seem like there's any must-have VR game.
Add that all up, and this is a product that won't appeal to most gamers yet, and won't appeal to a lot of tech geeks due to the Windows focus, so... yeah.
Am I the only one that's still a little skeptical? I'm sure that it's a great technology and we will see interesting things come out of it, but statements like this
> Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine.
kind of just make me roll my eyes. We've been hearing things like that for decades. Is it really going to blur the lines of reality? You'll still be sitting a chair with a machine strapped to your face. People also think it will change video games forever, but I honestly don't see how. It improves immersion, but for me, immersion isn't even on the top 10 list of things that I care about in games.
Feel free to disagree, but I'm just saying that people are really hyping this thing up.
1) First generation devices are usually flops/riddled with bugs, but usually exploitable if you don't upgrade firmware/etc.
2) I would probably need to buy a 980TI ($600) or Titan X ($1k) to make up for my i7-2600k's failure. (I want a Titan X for deep convolution neural networks anyways).
3) Nvidia is on the verge of releasing their Pascal architecture. The Titan X was just recently released (Mar '15?). While it is a powerhouse, the pascal base Titan may come with 12-16GB of memory and a 10-20% speed increase.
4) Intel is near release on their broadwell-e platform which should be able to consume 40 pci-e lanes (like haswell-e). No word yet on if they plan on being able to use 40 pci-e lanes with skylake.
Summary: In 1 years time, there will be a base Pascal Titan that outperforms the Maxwell Titan X, a new ~$500 CPU that will be on par with the current $1000 CPU, and an assortment of VR options available. As much as it pains me, unless I see a Titan X for $600-800 on craigslist, I'm going to wait this one out.
I'm confused though; why do a pre-announcement for an announcement about pre-purchasing a product that's only two days away? They should have simply opened up pre-orders immediately.
That being said I can't imagine they expect to sell much. It requires such a beefy PC (of which fewer and fewer are buying them nowadays for ultrabooks and tablets) and it's going to be expensive plus it won't ship with the touch controllers.
I think VR will ultimately become HUGE but until I can get one for at most $200 and use without a beefy PC I'll pass.
> Until I can get one for at most $200 and use without a beefy PC I'll pass.
That's fair, but not really relevant.
There are more than enough people willing to pay to meet the early adopter 'exclusivity' target they are going for. And If they deliver it right (and the included games are half decent) word of mouth, and trying it at a friends house can create a snowball effect.
The question is if VR is ready for the mainstream and vice versa. That will be down to the ingenuity of developers and the capability of the hardware. I don't think cost or the current limitation to PC is at all relevant in that aspect. Of course these will spill over to consoles in time if it is successful, and of course they will become cheaper if mass demand follows.
Now the real question- go with Facebook and buy an Oculus Rift or go with Valve/HTC and buy a Vive?
The Vive has more features (like head tracking) but maybe it will be more expensive? There's been nothing but silence in terms of pricing of either of them... I do have a hard time justifying $500+ for a screen I'll strap to my head that will probably be obsolete in a year or two.
I will say though, I recently bought a Steam Link and a Steam Controller and I am pretty impressed with the quality of Valve's hardware.
I just get the feeling VR technology simply will not work because the resolution isn't high enough, and even the most top-end monster PCs cannot handle standard resolution VR, let alone 4K or even 8K in the future.
Graphics cards really need a huge performance jump to make VR work, and given both Nvidia and AMD seem to be happy releasing a new set each year with only modest 20-30% performance gains then what does this mean for VR?
Eh. VR "worked" quite well enough for presence on the now-ancient Rift devkit 2. And my machine is hardly top of the line. A many gens old Intel proc with modest RAM and a GTX970.
Worst case? It means that details are scaled back in the name of framerate. Presence still works in a world that doesn't seem perfectly lifelike, so as long as the player is in another world, that's the single most important thing.
Less AA, less texture resolution. We can dial that back up as the tech gets better.
VR is the new Crysis when it comes to stress testing your hardware :)
There seems to be some speculation[1] that the performance increase from Maxwell to Pascal will be larger than usual.
Given that 2016 is supposed to be the "year of VR", it makes (marketing) sense that the GPUs released this year will be designed and/or optimized for that purpose. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
Have you tried either the Vive or CV1 Oculus? Both are quite immersive, sure pixels are larger like some 2000 era graphics. But back then I was immersed just like now. Devs tend to be overly picky about things they didn't used to be just because say on mobile or monitors you have higher. The immersion trade off of full wrap around head tracking compared to high res in a rectangle is worth it.
Not that you can necessarily pinpoint a specific date for release when dealing with hardware but I have to believe, with no hard evidence, that releasing new products right after Christmas and just before tax time has to be one of the worst times to release...unless you intentionally want demand to be initially low.
Did they ever decide to care about Linux again? I returned my devkit because they said they didn't care about Linux a couple of weeks after I got mine. I won't send them more money unless they're going to support Linux.
You could... return it? I thought they were very clear it wasn't refundable and there were some discussions in the forums about it with some negative quotes from the customer support...
> I won't send them more money unless they're going to support Linux.
Careful, they already said they support linux with the dk2 and we know how that went. Don't rely on what they say they "are going to do". Only buy it when they demonstrate complete and fully working linux support, not earlier.
Did they say they didn't care, or did they say they needed to focus development? There is a big difference between the two. If they were making a game in Unity and didn't release a Linux version, that's one thing. If they're making a brand new specialized piece of hardware and have had numerous delays and just need to get a product out the door... well it's a little more understandable that they would focus on one platform first.
I'm surprised no one on here has mentioned Minecraft yet.
One game that I was never able to get into before Oculus Rift was Minecraft. My kids have been begging me to play with them, but I really struggled to remain interested in the game. I could see why they loved it, but I didn't get into myself.
It bugged me that I was missing this opportunity to connect with my kids, especially with something computer-y, so over the holiday I spent a little time getting the Minecrift mod working.
Wow!
I now totally get it, and it seems to me that Minecraft will be at least one huge driver for the adoption of VR hardware amongst folks who are able to use it. (Recommended 13+.)
The low-resolution polygons in Minecraft really accentuate the 3D effect. When you're going up hills or looking at trees, the depth effect is crazily pronounced and amazing.
The basic graphics in Minecraft also have the benefit of rendering quite nicely even on incredibly limited hardware. For example, I spent hours playing on my 12" Retina MacBook, which I believe is the weakest hardware Apple ships. (Maybe it benefits from a GPU that powers a Retina display? I don't know.)
Getting attacked by creepers and zombies in the first-person was an insane experience. My heart rate was actually going up as I attempted to escape and ultimately failed.
And I was there. I grew personally attached to the cave I mined for myself where I hid to protect myself throughout the night, and felt a little sad when I accidentally let water flood in and destroy it. I was in that cave. Very cool.
I would frequently look down at my hands to remind myself of what weapon or tool I was holding and go through my hot keys until I saw the tool I wanted to use.
I'd spend a good deal of time just watching that big pixelated sun set over a landscape, and if I found a safe place, I'd sit around and watch the stars move through the night sky as the earth rotated. (Mostly I think this is when I became the most aware of the "screen door" effect.)
Anyway, if you've got DK2 hardware, I highly recommend trying it out with Minecraft if you haven't already. Microsoft announced they're planning official Oculus Rift support for Minecraft in the first half of next year, and judging from the way my son talks to his friends about it ("he's actually in Minecraft,") I think Minecraft will be a huge driver of sales of Oculus Rift.
I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on non-realistic graphics for VR to keep the specs down. If you try to make a VR game that looks as good as current high-end games, it's always going to require massive horsepower because it must run at 60+ FPS at a high resolution so everyone but hardcore gamers are going to be left out.
Mobile gaming became hugely popular without high-end graphics because of the easy of use, portability and touch input controls. I would have thought it would make more sense for VR games to focus on experiences you can only have with VR games (e.g. highly immersive, having sense of scale, use of hand input) and play to its strengths rather than limit its audience with high-end graphics.
I'm very excited about VR but having to buy a Rift and a high-end Windows gaming PC is asking a lot to get involved.
Ah, between this and HTC Vive... After testing both the HTC Vive was just years better than the Oculus, but I haven't tried the new Oculus iteration with touch... So hard to choose.
Anyone want to discuss setups for both? I need to buy a new machine for that.
As a flight sim enthusiast, I am super pumped about this. Though a shame the hands-controller was delayed so I'll need to buy a third-party one (leap motion).
The thing that worries me about this is that I don't see anything mentioned about different sizes. Hats aren't all one size. Glasses aren't all one size. I have an unfortunately large skull and "one size fits all" hats never fit me.
Does this mean that there won't be an Oculus for me?
I'm more looking forward to seeing the Sony VR. It's rumoured to be around the $250-$350 price mark. Sony have a history of getting traction despite not having the best spec/product, for example, remember HD DVD vs Blu Ray?
Now watch this face plant in the market. It's a niche product with horrifically overinflated expectations, steep pricing, and no application ecosystem or clear, killer-app use case. Good luck folks, you're gonna need it.
Anyone know if the rift would work on the newest high end model iMacs with the AMD M390? Obviously still have to run it via Windows I assume but just wondering if it would even work on them.
Making predictions about the adoption of technology is always perilous. However, after using Google's cardboard camera to take a few pictures on vacation and reviewing those pictures afterward I'm a believer. There's something about the immersive nature of those images that provide a very emotional contextual experience. If one is able to experience this with albeit relatively crude technology when compared to offerings like Oculus, I think these products could be very impactful.
Can anyone speak to using the Rift as an extended desktop? I've seen some mention of using it as an extended monitor in both Windows and OS X - has anyone with development devices used it with head tracking and had an almost infinite display?
How cool would it be to ditch multiple monitors and spread out over a 360 sphere code windows / browsers / documentation / etc... ? Use the head tracking to navigate the desktop world and still use the keyboard / mouse to interact.
For what it's worth as of SDK 0.6.0 of the Oculus you can no longer use it as an extended display. Prior to 0.6.0 you could run the Oculus in either "Extended" mode which just made it show up as an extra monitor, or in "Direct" mode where apps directly displayed their contents on the Oculus (without you having to move the window, make it full screen, etc).
What you're talking about however can easily be done with [Virtual Desktop](http://www.vrdesktop.net/) -- I've used it a few times while developing, it mostly works. It's definitely a nice experience to have your IDE infront of you, documentation a head tilt to the right, and Google a head tilt to the left, but the resolution was too low for me to be comfortable reading text for a long time on the DK2.
[+] [-] aresant|10 years ago|reply
The Oculus is the FIRST high-fidelity consumer VR experience.
And they've got the horsepower of Facebook's cash-machine as their bankroll.
Zuck gets this to the degree that I suspect he believes Facebook & VR will be synonymous within a decade (1)
Do I wish that Oculus was owned by some benevolent billionaire trickster like OASIS in Ready Player One? Sure, but come off it!
This release will mark the starting line of the change in how we interact with computers, how we capture memories, how we tell stories.
Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine.
Already in the DK2 I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
. . .
Really though, I have had some shocking experiences in the Oculus, starting with the DK1 going off the edge of a rollercoaster and feeling my stomach physically drop.
Yes this is a generation 1 product for early adopters.
Yes it's going to be expensive to buy, it won't be perfect.
But if you're browsing HN because you're a hacker / developer / dreamer you are crazy to discount how substantial this release is (especially if you haven't TRIED it yet!).
(1) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/feee4a1e-63aa-11e5-a28b-50226...
[+] [-] mkozlows|10 years ago|reply
1. Hardware requirements are steep (GTX 970 minimum), so plenty of hardware -- including plenty of hardware that's good for high-end gaming today -- won't be good enough for this.
2. Only Windows support. No compatibility with Linux, SteamOS, or even OSX means that the techie enthusiasts who'd play with it as a tech toy are going to be less interested.
3. But biggest of all: The games aren't there. It's become very clear, both from playing with the DK2, and listening to presentations by Valve and Oculus people, that VR games can't just be regular games with VR bolted on. "Skyrim, but with VR" sounds cool, and makes for a cool five-minute demo, but will just make you sick and be unsatisfying in the long term.
VR games need to be designed for VR in a really fundamental way. It's not clear that there are any interesting games that do this, or that there's a lot of effort going toward making games like this.
If this were a product that were coming out from Nintendo, I'd be confident that they had a good idea about how to adapt their franchises to take advantage of VR in a really cool way, and that there'd be at least a handful of games that made it an absolute must-have. But from Facebook... well, they're a tech company, not a gaming company, so they're depending on someone else to make the games that will justify this thing. Maybe that'll work in the long term, but right now, it doesn't seem like there's any must-have VR game.
Add that all up, and this is a product that won't appeal to most gamers yet, and won't appeal to a lot of tech geeks due to the Windows focus, so... yeah.
[+] [-] vlunkr|10 years ago|reply
> Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine.
kind of just make me roll my eyes. We've been hearing things like that for decades. Is it really going to blur the lines of reality? You'll still be sitting a chair with a machine strapped to your face. People also think it will change video games forever, but I honestly don't see how. It improves immersion, but for me, immersion isn't even on the top 10 list of things that I care about in games.
Feel free to disagree, but I'm just saying that people are really hyping this thing up.
[+] [-] ambiate|10 years ago|reply
1) First generation devices are usually flops/riddled with bugs, but usually exploitable if you don't upgrade firmware/etc.
2) I would probably need to buy a 980TI ($600) or Titan X ($1k) to make up for my i7-2600k's failure. (I want a Titan X for deep convolution neural networks anyways).
3) Nvidia is on the verge of releasing their Pascal architecture. The Titan X was just recently released (Mar '15?). While it is a powerhouse, the pascal base Titan may come with 12-16GB of memory and a 10-20% speed increase.
4) Intel is near release on their broadwell-e platform which should be able to consume 40 pci-e lanes (like haswell-e). No word yet on if they plan on being able to use 40 pci-e lanes with skylake.
Summary: In 1 years time, there will be a base Pascal Titan that outperforms the Maxwell Titan X, a new ~$500 CPU that will be on par with the current $1000 CPU, and an assortment of VR options available. As much as it pains me, unless I see a Titan X for $600-800 on craigslist, I'm going to wait this one out.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wasyl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fla|10 years ago|reply
Edit: I meant "worked"
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BinaryIdiot|10 years ago|reply
I'm confused though; why do a pre-announcement for an announcement about pre-purchasing a product that's only two days away? They should have simply opened up pre-orders immediately.
That being said I can't imagine they expect to sell much. It requires such a beefy PC (of which fewer and fewer are buying them nowadays for ultrabooks and tablets) and it's going to be expensive plus it won't ship with the touch controllers.
I think VR will ultimately become HUGE but until I can get one for at most $200 and use without a beefy PC I'll pass.
[+] [-] ramblerman|10 years ago|reply
That's fair, but not really relevant.
There are more than enough people willing to pay to meet the early adopter 'exclusivity' target they are going for. And If they deliver it right (and the included games are half decent) word of mouth, and trying it at a friends house can create a snowball effect.
The question is if VR is ready for the mainstream and vice versa. That will be down to the ingenuity of developers and the capability of the hardware. I don't think cost or the current limitation to PC is at all relevant in that aspect. Of course these will spill over to consoles in time if it is successful, and of course they will become cheaper if mass demand follows.
[+] [-] haydenlee|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serge2k|10 years ago|reply
200 dollars I could see, but you will need a powerful machine to drive the resolution and frame rate required (or get sick, up to you).
and the reason is likely because they expect backorders and announcing preorders means it's fair for everyone.
[+] [-] coralreef|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TranquilMarmot|10 years ago|reply
The Vive has more features (like head tracking) but maybe it will be more expensive? There's been nothing but silence in terms of pricing of either of them... I do have a hard time justifying $500+ for a screen I'll strap to my head that will probably be obsolete in a year or two.
I will say though, I recently bought a Steam Link and a Steam Controller and I am pretty impressed with the quality of Valve's hardware.
[+] [-] mgo|10 years ago|reply
Graphics cards really need a huge performance jump to make VR work, and given both Nvidia and AMD seem to be happy releasing a new set each year with only modest 20-30% performance gains then what does this mean for VR?
[+] [-] Karunamon|10 years ago|reply
Worst case? It means that details are scaled back in the name of framerate. Presence still works in a world that doesn't seem perfectly lifelike, so as long as the player is in another world, that's the single most important thing.
Less AA, less texture resolution. We can dial that back up as the tech gets better.
VR is the new Crysis when it comes to stress testing your hardware :)
[+] [-] strictnein|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gervase|10 years ago|reply
Given that 2016 is supposed to be the "year of VR", it makes (marketing) sense that the GPUs released this year will be designed and/or optimized for that purpose. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
[1] - http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidias-pascal-is-10x-as-powerful-as-...
[+] [-] agildehaus|10 years ago|reply
Also, with VR, you can just upscale. You don't need to render a 4K/8K image to eliminate the screen-door effect.
[+] [-] endergen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baby|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] innerspirit|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akmiller|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] berberous|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sir_Cmpwn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xnxn|10 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/674311865023918080
[+] [-] Tmmrn|10 years ago|reply
> I won't send them more money unless they're going to support Linux.
Careful, they already said they support linux with the dk2 and we know how that went. Don't rely on what they say they "are going to do". Only buy it when they demonstrate complete and fully working linux support, not earlier.
[+] [-] freehunter|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spicyj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aculver|10 years ago|reply
One game that I was never able to get into before Oculus Rift was Minecraft. My kids have been begging me to play with them, but I really struggled to remain interested in the game. I could see why they loved it, but I didn't get into myself.
It bugged me that I was missing this opportunity to connect with my kids, especially with something computer-y, so over the holiday I spent a little time getting the Minecrift mod working.
Wow!
I now totally get it, and it seems to me that Minecraft will be at least one huge driver for the adoption of VR hardware amongst folks who are able to use it. (Recommended 13+.)
The low-resolution polygons in Minecraft really accentuate the 3D effect. When you're going up hills or looking at trees, the depth effect is crazily pronounced and amazing.
The basic graphics in Minecraft also have the benefit of rendering quite nicely even on incredibly limited hardware. For example, I spent hours playing on my 12" Retina MacBook, which I believe is the weakest hardware Apple ships. (Maybe it benefits from a GPU that powers a Retina display? I don't know.)
Getting attacked by creepers and zombies in the first-person was an insane experience. My heart rate was actually going up as I attempted to escape and ultimately failed.
And I was there. I grew personally attached to the cave I mined for myself where I hid to protect myself throughout the night, and felt a little sad when I accidentally let water flood in and destroy it. I was in that cave. Very cool.
I would frequently look down at my hands to remind myself of what weapon or tool I was holding and go through my hot keys until I saw the tool I wanted to use.
I'd spend a good deal of time just watching that big pixelated sun set over a landscape, and if I found a safe place, I'd sit around and watch the stars move through the night sky as the earth rotated. (Mostly I think this is when I became the most aware of the "screen door" effect.)
Anyway, if you've got DK2 hardware, I highly recommend trying it out with Minecraft if you haven't already. Microsoft announced they're planning official Oculus Rift support for Minecraft in the first half of next year, and judging from the way my son talks to his friends about it ("he's actually in Minecraft,") I think Minecraft will be a huge driver of sales of Oculus Rift.
[+] [-] cs0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanwilson|10 years ago|reply
Mobile gaming became hugely popular without high-end graphics because of the easy of use, portability and touch input controls. I would have thought it would make more sense for VR games to focus on experiences you can only have with VR games (e.g. highly immersive, having sense of scale, use of hand input) and play to its strengths rather than limit its audience with high-end graphics.
I'm very excited about VR but having to buy a Rift and a high-end Windows gaming PC is asking a lot to get involved.
[+] [-] baby|10 years ago|reply
Anyone want to discuss setups for both? I need to buy a new machine for that.
[+] [-] Blackthorn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiaoma|10 years ago|reply
Does this mean that there won't be an Oculus for me?
[+] [-] trezm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Greenisus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZenoArrow|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glynjackson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melted|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akmiller|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irln|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsiunsuex|10 years ago|reply
How cool would it be to ditch multiple monitors and spread out over a 360 sphere code windows / browsers / documentation / etc... ? Use the head tracking to navigate the desktop world and still use the keyboard / mouse to interact.
[+] [-] jc4p|10 years ago|reply
What you're talking about however can easily be done with [Virtual Desktop](http://www.vrdesktop.net/) -- I've used it a few times while developing, it mostly works. It's definitely a nice experience to have your IDE infront of you, documentation a head tilt to the right, and Google a head tilt to the left, but the resolution was too low for me to be comfortable reading text for a long time on the DK2.
[+] [-] strictnein|10 years ago|reply
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/oculus-rift-pre-orders-to-...
Also, no mention of the promised Xbox One controller among the bundled items. Wonder if they'll just be sending a coupon or something in the box.
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|10 years ago|reply