Update on Oculus Touch Ship Date | Hacker News Reader

Update on Oculus Touch Ship Date

oculus.com

37 pointsevo_946 comments

A VR HMD without tracked hand controllers is not the real thing (I know, I have owned the DK1, DK2 and Gear VR). The first thing someone new to VR does after entering VR is raising the hands and looking at them (or not, due to lack of tracking).

Bundling the Oculus Rift with a XBox One controller will encourage developers to support this immersion-breaking controller instead of taking the leap to a virtual reality environment where you manipulate objects by moving your hands to their location in space, something that is completely intuitive.

I understand why Oculus is doing it - they originally stated that if they don't ship by the end of 2015 something has seriously gone wrong - but I don't like it.

It appears that Oculus' biggest competitor, the HTC Vive - which includes tracked controllers - will be available earlier than the Oculus touch.

Not sure it's a good idea to separate the 2 product launches. If the Oculus Touch is necessary for a good VR experience, they take the risk of bad reviews while waiting for the control device.

Having used Oculus to play Elite, Oculus Touch really is not needed. Good voice controls are needed and possibly Kinect.

You probably used a HOTAS controller to play Elite. But what about games that have you manipulate objects in 3d space? Only a tracked controller will make it fast, intuitive and efficient.

Yes I use a HOTAS controller. You are probably correct, however, even touch shapes your hands, limiting finger manipulation. Something like a glove or Kinect would provide a more granular approach for certain scenarios.

I'm pretty sure that we will see a huge number of different devices to affect 3D worlds, touch being one of them.

I've used the consumer Rift with and without Touch and it really just comes down to the specific applications. There are plenty of applications where it doesn't make sense to use hand controllers (like space sims or car racing games) and plenty where it makes sense (shooters, social communication). In the long run my guess is more and more apps will use hands but we'll go through a skeuomorphic phase in the beginning where there is no clear input standard and we hold onto inputs from previous platforms.

Applications with custom controllers such as racing games or flight simulations will work very well, however games that use keyboard+mouse or gamepad represent concepts ported over from pre-VR gaming and in many cases I believe they will be inferior.

Some of those concepts never made sense to me. I'm talking about stuff like Quick Time Events. CoD: AW even went as far as "press F to pay respects".

Just an opinion, but all the hype around VR seems a little overblown so far as the consumer side goes for me... the rift still looks too big and the applications clunky. I haven't heard of any AAA games coming to the rift (happy to be corrected) - so I wonder whether this is just another hyped industry.

Where I can see it being more useful is things like heavy industry for controlling robots and training for doctors - far more industrially based. Even teaching would be cool - imagine the history lessons.

Will be interesting to see the industry develop...

Biggest concern is nausea and vision problems that will make game playing problematic. It will find its way into social VR experiences and architecture/enginnering/medical stuff.

Technically its not hyped - it's a feat- but i think commercially it's overhyped.

vrporn alone could keep this industry afloat

Porn industry adoption is likely closest thing to a sure thing the tech industry has in terms of a oracle. Its been the tipping point in:

VHS

Dvd

Bluray

Web

I don't see how the porn industry had a big role in pushing the web forward, care to elaborate?

Didn't the porn industry adopt HDDVD until they realised that Bluray was winning?

No it hasn't. This is just a myth.

DVD/BluRay were all successful purely because the largest CE companies put their might behind it and pushed it forward. Arguably the Playstation was a far bigger influence.

The Web never had Porn for quite a while (I had a 1200bps modem and remember the early days pretty well). Sites like Yahoo, Netscape etc were the reason the Web was successful. Porn was mostly Hotline Client, Usenet, Private FTP and BBS accounts. Even then Porn was never popular until Quicktime came about.

Porn has never defined new mediums, it has always followed customers to the mediums they have selected already.

I think VR will become a niche for games. Sitting/cockpit games like star citizen or elite dangerous are niches where VR will work very well. VR will be a novelty for a while, but wear off, just like the Wii. I really cant see many people wanting a standing experience for extended gameplay. Most people just want to sit on the couch/chair and play games for a few hours.

The momentum and novelty is already starting to wear off as you noted. Though i'm sure when the headsets finally release, the novelty will be rekindled for a while. I'm just not sure its going to be everything that all the hype has promised.

As for practical applications, i think for those you mentioned, augmented reality (AR) will be a much more suitable fit to those applications overall.

It really will be interesting to see how things develop.

Do you really believe that the whole architecture sector will not use VR in a huge way? And what about learning experiences? Remote presence applications? The revival of VR is rooted in the games industry, however let's not forget that VR was never totally dead, it was alive in various non-gaming niches and their appeal will increase a lot with the availability of cheaper, better and more ergonomic hardware.

I'm not saying that VR will not be used, but that AR will be a much better technology for the industry, learning applications and general use. There will still be niches for VR, in much the same way there is now.

VR is good for simulations/games. For real world usage, AR will become an enabler. As an example, after having run simulations to learn the basics of flying a plane (using VR), you can then use AR to help you as you do the real thing. You could continue to use AR to assist in providing pertinent information while flying. The same process could be used for any kind of machinery that people must learn to use (driving for example).

AR has far more scope and relevance for applications outside of games. It is also much harder to do right than VR. I'm of the opinion that VR will pave the way for AR.

AR is interesting for applications where you're dealing with the physical reality immediately proximate to you.

I would expect that the internet has taught us nothing if not that it's much more economically efficient to enable telepresence (i.e. immersion in a remote environment) than anything which requires matter to be colocated with you.

I very much see it the other way around: AR will be huge boon in physical, need-my-hands-on matter industries (of which there are relatively few nowadays) and VR will swallow everything else.

You can also add healthcare. Huge potential there.

As someone with a good friend who is a thoracic surgeon, the applications for endoscopy/key hole surgery alone are going to be revolutionary.

Generally, anything where the "thing" you're looking at it going to be vastly superior to view in 3D than simulated 3D via a 2D screen. We've gotten decent at interpreting 2D images, but the vision portions of our brains evolved around 3D... that's a lot of wasted neurons (and where I'd assume most of the "presence" that people can't describe comes from).

Minecraft, Rock Band VR and Eve Valkerie are coming to the Rift. I'd consider them all AAA games nowadays.

This seems like one of those comments people will link to in a few years when VR is ubiquitous and its success obvious.

Exactly. "VR is the next big thing" is the new Linux for the desktop. I like to use the adoption among women as a litmus test: no technology will gain ubuquity unless it gets women excited. I fail to see that for VR headsets like the Oculus. It is more like a Palm Pilot than a modern smartphone.

I certainly hope so! I would love to see it grow and grow and become more pervasive in our lives. There has been a whole lot of hype, and I do hope it lives up to it - I just don't see the Rift as being the answer in its current form.

That being said, of course everything develops, so it will be interesting what kind of stepping stone the rift is, and whether the momentum of it can carry through further, smaller innovation.

It's not quite there yet for consumers, but it will be soon. I've spent quite a while using the HTC Vive, and it really is an incredible experience. The only software available right now are quite short demos, but even those are pretty amazing. Going through the robot repair demo (set in the portal world) is exhilarating and a little bit scary in a way that no video game I've played before has been.

Things like screen resolution (pixels are still slightly noticeable) and weight will naturally improve. The bigger challenge for this type of motion-tracking VR is working out how to build games which take place in a larger space than you have available. It will be interesting to see what people come up with.

Honestly, once this stuff is a bit smaller and lighter, I can't imagine anyone wanting to play games on a TV.

You are seeing the tipping point of a new industry. Products will be made in volume. The critical difference is that there will be lots of revenue generated, which will fuel further development, accelerating innovation.

The original iPhone was a bit of hype too, right? The Apple Watch? Bill Gates showing off "pen computing" in 1991?

https://youtu.be/eenDjMXfVBQ?t=142

Personally, I don't see the point in being "that guy" who feels the need to explain to everyone that the nascent technology is hyped. Your comment can apply to most technology. In fact, someone should create to "AI" to announce the overhyped AI that we're going through.

Certainly not trying to be 'that guy' for anything, ever. In fact, I try to avoid being 'that guy' in most walks of life. Simply adding my opinion.

VR isn't a nascent technology though. It's a technology that has been reimagined, then push back to the fore in a repackaged form to a world with different software capabilities to what existed in the mid 90s. It's todays version of the 3D cinema - an older idea being reapplied in a new world.

I hope it can change our lives as human beings for the better, but from what exists today, I'm yet to see anything game changing. The future - who knows. You could be right, it could explode, or it could come to nothing. My comment merely stated it would be interesting to watch and find out if everything that has been said to date will actually happen.

The fact that the market will grow an order of magnitude in 2016 is a game changer. What you think about the technology is irrelevant. It's economics. Now the curve can steeply increase over the next decade:

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/iphone...

Could you also give me your stock market tips please? Would love to know what else the future holds as facts.

Sure, in my opinion this week is going to be bad. That's an analogy to your "overhyped" comment. In 10 years the market will be much higher than today.

While it's natural to be skeptical, I'd withhold judgement until after you've tried either the Vive or consumer Rift. One of VR's challenges is that it need to be experienced to really understand it. Until you feel presence, the excitement doesn't really make sense. On the flip side, I haven't met a lot of people slag it once they have.

(Note: Prior DKs and mobile VR generally does not induce presence for most people)

Or, to put it another way: would "staring a small screen that can display two colors (something and black) and typing slowly on a typewriter-like entry system" have sounded like a compelling experience? How about "maneuvering a block on your desk that corresponds to a dot on a screen, with buttons to initiate actions"?

Surely there's no way those would beat the experience of a time-tested, bona-fide, genuine newspaper!

TBH, a newspaper is still a much better way to get my news than the internet, especially with recent bloated design trends. YMMV.

Really? Did you realize that the newspaper published only news from the day before at the latest, once a day? (Crazy I know.) Just a few people called "editors" decide what you read. And it doesn't ever get updated, even if it's wrong or something new happened. You can't even find primary sources or citations! God forbid you'd want to ever search for anything by a keyword.

I genuinely don't understand your point. You make it sounds like newspaper editorial policy is some gross conspiracy, or that newspapers aren't published every day. Or that I somehow even mentioned wanting keyword search anyway - as if that's even relevant to getting a daily news overview.

Seriously, what's your point?

Well, since you asked, I was merely noting the ways in which digital delivery of news has more depth, breadth, relevancy, timeliness, and searchability, but yes, those factors don't matter to some people.

Even lower-powered VR can have a lot of utility. I've heard folks use the Samsung Gear VR for movie watching, where it uses an application to make it seem like you're in a room with a 100+ inch television, and apparently the sense of presence is so great that it's perfect for watching movies while traveling.

Here's John Carmack's post on the subject: http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/09/john-carmack-on-developi...

As a VR dev/enthusiast, I agree that the Gear VR is surprisingly not bad (I have an S6 Gear VR IE) - the fact that it's mobile makes it really easy to share, and it's a huge leap over the cardboard (most people can wear it without getting sick). The resolution is better than the DK2 and the experience it provides can be immersive and fun - IMO, it's especially well suited for 360 video content (being untethered, 360 video doesn't support positional tracking anyway), but IMO, the Vive/CB/CV1s are on a different level.

Two things to note:

* Pixel density and screen door effect (pixel fill) are artifacts that are much worse in the Gear VR (and similar) than in most displays. The consumer PC-class gear mostly solve the latter, but some people are more sensitive to this than others. While using the Gear VR in a plane mostly beats any other way you can watch media, I wouldn't get rid of your 4K TV yet...

* Within VR, "presence" is actually a term of art that refers to a type of immersion which refers to the illusion/perception of being physically present within a virtual world. When this kicks in, it happens at a subconscious level, but its easily broken right now. One of the biggest requirements is solid tracking - because the Gear VR doesn't have positional tracking (handling translation), presence is rarely, if ever achieved. (Even when you're watching TV, pay attention to how often you move your head, even slightly and imagine if the TV moved along with your head movements).

If you'd like to read more about presence (like with most things I suppose) Wikipedia isn't a bad place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_(virtual_reality)

A pretty interesting paper I ran across while searching just now: http://www.ism.univmed.fr/mestre/projects/virtual%20reality/...

Feeling presence with a DK2 was a literally jaw dropping experience. I sat there with a huge grin on my face for minutes just looking around. You really do have to experience it to understand.

That said, it's definitely bulky, dorky, low rez, and requires a faster PC than most non-gamers have. But it's a v1, like Pong or original iPhone. I have no doubt the category will be huge, but it will take a few generations of progress for it to penetrate past the diehards.

The key concept here is "presence". The Oculus is good enough that 9 out of 10 people standing on a Minecraft cliff refuse to jump off of it when using the Rift. Compare to non-VR: how many people had to stop playing Assassin's Creed or Just Cause because they were too afraid to jump from tall heights? My guess is: not many.

In a very visceral sense, then, VR isn't just better than non-VR - it's practically a whole new thing. If you're looking for AAA titles, you should realize that you're basically looking for titles from an entirely different medium. Like the leap from 2D to 3D in the 90's, I imagine that the big breakthrough games will be built for the medium (like Doom and Quake). Since the past few generations of games have made heavy use of 3rd person cameras, I'd almost bet this will be the case.

Exactly. Doom was popular because it was a more immersive experience of hell than anything that came before (remember, this was two years before Win95 Ba-Dum Tshh).

The content was far less important than the novel and superior medium.

Subtle hint in that announcement that Rift is good to go this quarter!

frankly, i was surprised noone mentions that. are we clear on the exact date and price? for rift.

The details will be released at CES for sure...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com