Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Because trying to target all of the different VR input devices out there is a nightmare for a developer. You not only have to integrate all of the relevant APIs or plugins to make the specific hardware work, you also have to design your input systems on the UI side to work with all of them equally well. And even then there's a chance that you've forgotten one whose popularity you couldn't foresee. Or your game works particularly well on one of them, and your customers will say "Well, I don't have that obscure eye-tracking device, so this game isn't worth buying for me."
It's a big can of worms, and this neatly sidesteps it.
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Because trying to target all of the different VR input devices out there is a nightmare for a developer. You not only have to integrate all of the relevant APIs or plugins to make the specific hardware work, you also have to design your input systems on the UI side to work with all of them equally well. And even then there's a chance that you've forgotten one whose popularity you couldn't foresee. Or your game works particularly well on one of them, and your customers will say "Well, I don't have that obscure eye-tracking device, so this game isn't worth buying for me."
It's a big can of worms, and this neatly sidesteps it.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
It seems like the smart thing to do would be to have a Rift without the controller, then one with it bundled in that's cheaper than the price of buying both separately.
Toying with my DK1, I can't seem to get the bloody thing working with Star Citizen/Arena Commander or War Thunder at all. Every damn post I've found on their forums says it's as easy as pressing numpad 1 in Arena Commander, but it does jack squat, even after fiddling with user.cfg and such. War Thunder at least starts with the whole separate lenses view thing, but drops to 5 FPS if outputting to Rift. Frustrating, given they're two major reasons I got the thing. :x
Toying with my DK1, I can't seem to get the bloody thing working with Star Citizen/Arena Commander or War Thunder at all. Every damn post I've found on their forums says it's as easy as pressing numpad 1 in Arena Commander, but it does jack squat, even after fiddling with user.cfg and such. War Thunder at least starts with the whole separate lenses view thing, but drops to 5 FPS if outputting to Rift. Frustrating, given they're two major reasons I got the thing. :x
Star Citizen's Oculus Rift implementation isn't there at all as far as I know. They haven't devoted much (if any) resources to it yet as they're waiting on Crytek to implement Rift support into the Crysis engine itself.
Toying with my DK1, I can't seem to get the bloody thing working with Star Citizen/Arena Commander or War Thunder at all. Every damn post I've found on their forums says it's as easy as pressing numpad 1 in Arena Commander, but it does jack squat, even after fiddling with user.cfg and such. War Thunder at least starts with the whole separate lenses view thing, but drops to 5 FPS if outputting to Rift. Frustrating, given they're two major reasons I got the thing. :x
Star Citizen's Oculus Rift implementation isn't there at all as far as I know. They haven't devoted much (if any) resources to it yet as they're waiting on Crytek to implement Rift support into the Crysis engine itself.
I've read as such, though people seem to say that while the DK2 never got official support, the DK1 should be a matter of a single button press.
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Because trying to target all of the different VR input devices out there is a nightmare for a developer. You not only have to integrate all of the relevant APIs or plugins to make the specific hardware work, you also have to design your input systems on the UI side to work with all of them equally well. And even then there's a chance that you've forgotten one whose popularity you couldn't foresee. Or your game works particularly well on one of them, and your customers will say "Well, I don't have that obscure eye-tracking device, so this game isn't worth buying for me."
It's a big can of worms, and this neatly sidesteps it.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
Put it this way: most big developers hate nonstandard hardware. Having to redesign everything for different controllers is a giant pain, as it often necessitates redesigning the entire game. That's why most big developers took one look at the Wiimote and said "eh, fuck that." (And I liked the Wiimote.)
Then again, standard hardware only gets you so far, as Nintendo's learned with the Wii U tablet (which has exactly as many inputs as everyone else).
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Because trying to target all of the different VR input devices out there is a nightmare for a developer. You not only have to integrate all of the relevant APIs or plugins to make the specific hardware work, you also have to design your input systems on the UI side to work with all of them equally well. And even then there's a chance that you've forgotten one whose popularity you couldn't foresee. Or your game works particularly well on one of them, and your customers will say "Well, I don't have that obscure eye-tracking device, so this game isn't worth buying for me."
It's a big can of worms, and this neatly sidesteps it.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
Put it this way: most big developers hate nonstandard hardware. Having to redesign everything for different controllers is a giant pain, as it often necessitates redesigning the entire game. That's why most big developers took one look at the Wiimote and said "eh, fuck that." (And I liked the Wiimote.)
Then again, standard hardware only gets you so far, as Nintendo's learned with the Wii U tablet (which has exactly as many inputs as everyone else).
Right, but the PCs everywhere have the mouse and keyboard which are generally regarded as preferable anyway. That's a draw for many gamers on the platform.
Furthermore, pandering to the developers over the consumer is a huge mistake. Developers have made games on PC for awhile now without needing a different control standard. What's changed so much that they need to potentially force consumers to purchase a second controller? Or a first that they don't want?
It feels like Microsoft's trying to take advantage of its partnership to gain marketing and money. Or something. I really can't wrap my head around how this is beneficial for me and everyone else.
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Because trying to target all of the different VR input devices out there is a nightmare for a developer. You not only have to integrate all of the relevant APIs or plugins to make the specific hardware work, you also have to design your input systems on the UI side to work with all of them equally well. And even then there's a chance that you've forgotten one whose popularity you couldn't foresee. Or your game works particularly well on one of them, and your customers will say "Well, I don't have that obscure eye-tracking device, so this game isn't worth buying for me."
It's a big can of worms, and this neatly sidesteps it.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
Put it this way: most big developers hate nonstandard hardware. Having to redesign everything for different controllers is a giant pain, as it often necessitates redesigning the entire game. That's why most big developers took one look at the Wiimote and said "eh, fuck that." (And I liked the Wiimote.)
Then again, standard hardware only gets you so far, as Nintendo's learned with the Wii U tablet (which has exactly as many inputs as everyone else).
Right, but the PCs everywhere have the mouse and keyboard which are generally regarded as preferable anyway. That's a draw for many gamers on the platform.
Furthermore, pandering to the developers over the consumer is a huge mistake. Developers have made games on PC for awhile now without needing a different control standard. What's changed so much that they need to potentially force consumers to purchase a second controller? Or a first that they don't want?
It feels like Microsoft's trying to take advantage of its partnership to gain marketing and money. Or something. I really can't wrap my head around how this is beneficial for me and everyone else.
I haven't tried any VR myself so I could be way off but maybe they simply don't like KBM input for VR? I could see them bringing people in and trying the experience for the first time and asking them to find the keyboard/mouse after they put the headset on themselves. It could definitely cause accidental input, maybe a controller might have that issue too but I don't see it being as bad.
There is also the issue of standing experiences, I think in most cases a controller will be better suited for that. I have no idea what type of marketing they are doing for this but if they plan to put it into retail stores with demos a controller is definitely the way to go vs keyboard and mouse especially for standing.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
This is the same company that adamantly insisted that the Kinect peripheral was a resolutely vital core component of the Xbone for, what, 1-2 years? Before finally caving and removing the peripheral because it was anything but essential and people wanted the system a hundred bucks cheaper a hell of a lot more than another silly gimmick control system? With a very silly part of the their justification being "but having the Kinect means developers can always rely on it", even though most won't even want to?
The bundling thing is plain stupid and is more of Microsoft's strategy of just trying to force unnecessary equipment on people to get them locked into Microsoft stuff. They'll try to spin it as beneficial for the end user, but they really don't give a shit about that and just want their stuff in as many homes as possible.
The fact that shitloads of people already have Microsoft gamepads for PC play makes it just that much dumber, since now people will get stuck with the OR costing more for a second device they already have. Allowing the end user to remap their controls to whatever device they own is not fucking rocket science (I have a joystick that's over decade old and is still readily recognized by every game I own that allows remapping); the issue is that publishers are insanely lazy and cheap for not simply using the solution of planning for gamepads and allowing control remapping for whatever people own.
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Because trying to target all of the different VR input devices out there is a nightmare for a developer. You not only have to integrate all of the relevant APIs or plugins to make the specific hardware work, you also have to design your input systems on the UI side to work with all of them equally well. And even then there's a chance that you've forgotten one whose popularity you couldn't foresee. Or your game works particularly well on one of them, and your customers will say "Well, I don't have that obscure eye-tracking device, so this game isn't worth buying for me."
It's a big can of worms, and this neatly sidesteps it.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
Put it this way: most big developers hate nonstandard hardware. Having to redesign everything for different controllers is a giant pain, as it often necessitates redesigning the entire game. That's why most big developers took one look at the Wiimote and said "eh, fuck that." (And I liked the Wiimote.)
Then again, standard hardware only gets you so far, as Nintendo's learned with the Wii U tablet (which has exactly as many inputs as everyone else).
Right, but the PCs everywhere have the mouse and keyboard which are generally regarded as preferable anyway. That's a draw for many gamers on the platform.
Furthermore, pandering to the developers over the consumer is a huge mistake. Developers have made games on PC for awhile now without needing a different control standard. What's changed so much that they need to potentially force consumers to purchase a second controller? Or a first that they don't want?
It feels like Microsoft's trying to take advantage of its partnership to gain marketing and money. Or something. I really can't wrap my head around how this is beneficial for me and everyone else.
I haven't tried any VR myself so I could be way off but maybe they simply don't like KBM input for VR? I could see them bringing people in and trying the experience for the first time and asking them to find the keyboard/mouse after they put the headset on themselves. It could definitely cause accidental input, maybe a controller might have that issue too but I don't see it being as bad.
There is also the issue of standing experiences, I think in most cases a controller will be better suited for that. I have no idea what type of marketing they are doing for this but if they plan to put it into retail stores with demos a controller is definitely the way to go vs keyboard and mouse especially for standing.
If a controller is recommended that's fine, but they're forcing you to buy one. The Rift isn't a piece of hardware that's designed for the lowest common denominator PC owner. No, it requires top end specs. An enthusiast already has the motivation to go out and buy a controller if they feel they need one, and likely already has one, but they're forcing us to get one by packaging it with a the Rift. It doesn't matter if they feel that it's the best controller for VR, which itself feels like a dubious claim given that we'll play it on various future and preexisting games. Hell, the primary games I want it for won't require controllers. I'd think that the Rift would excel on first person games which is the KBAM's niche.
So VR-Gaming with Occulus ideally needs my rig to output a stable 90 frames per second for each eye. Looking at how important a stable performance is for an optimal VR-experience, and how PC is an open platform, where users essentially have to optimize their hardware to the experience, rather than developers optimizing the experience for the platform, I don't see how VR on PC will ever speak to any audience outside of the hardest core tech fetishists out there.
I'm pretty hardcore about gaming myself, spending lots of my freetime and money on it, but I was never big on PC gaming. I rarely upgrade my rig, usually just when I need to repair something that's broken, and every 5-10 years when I get an all new box. I find tinkering to be a bothersome hassle, and a potentially bottomless moneypit. I don't see myself being willing to upkeep a VR-ready rig constantly. Every frame counts. Supposedly it makes the difference between bending over a puke bucket, and having a great time.
So yeah, eventually companies serious about VR gaming will have to establish hardware standards for the processing of VR-games. If the consumers are responsible for optimizing the experience by constantly upgrading their hardware and tweaking the software, it simply won't have much mass market potential. Too few are willing to spend their time and money to constantly fine-tune their gaming/VR experience.
Right now, the only somewhat interesting VR proposition for me is Sony's Morpheus, because it takes all the responsibility for optimization out of my hands. That said, I don't see them pushing the envelope all too far with the given hardware limitations. I'm pretty certain we'll soon get console-like hardware out of Occulus and Valve, because otherwise I just don't see it taking off outside of the hardest of core PC and tech fetish audiences. I guess it'll be another couple of years before sufficient processing power will be affordable enough to make that happen.
BranniganSepp on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
Sure it is. You're saying since there's no benefit to you specifically by the Rift including a controller, the price point is no longer acceptable, regardless of what it actually ends up costing. I'm pretty sure the ReVive isn't going to include a controller. Since that's where your line in the sand is, that's your solution. Being upset because the Rift isn't being made just for you is ridiculous.
I'm interested to see how much actual movement space games/apps will make use of for the vive. Certainly reminds me of Kinect and the complaints people had about that and this seems to require even more room.
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
Sure it is. You're saying since there's no benefit to you specifically by the Rift including a controller, the price point is no longer acceptable, regardless of what it actually ends up costing. I'm pretty sure the ReVive isn't going to include a controller. Since that's where your line in the sand is, that's your solution. Being upset because the Rift isn't being made just for you is ridiculous.
I'm making an argument about the decision to include the controller. Not that it isn't for me. That I don't want a controller simply means I have a dog in the fight. You're purposely trying to mischaracterize my posts.
Are you capable of making a rational argument for the inclusion of the controller?
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
Sure it is. You're saying since there's no benefit to you specifically by the Rift including a controller, the price point is no longer acceptable, regardless of what it actually ends up costing. I'm pretty sure the ReVive isn't going to include a controller. Since that's where your line in the sand is, that's your solution. Being upset because the Rift isn't being made just for you is ridiculous.
I'm making an argument about the decision to include the controller. Not that it isn't for me. That I don't want a controller simply means I have a dog in the fight. You're purposely trying to mischaracterize my posts.
Are you capable of making a rational argument for the inclusion of the controller?
Not everybody have a controller.
+1
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
I'm interested to see how much actual movement space games/apps will make use of for the vive. Certainly reminds me of Kinect and the complaints people had about that and this seems to require even more room.
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
Sure it is. You're saying since there's no benefit to you specifically by the Rift including a controller, the price point is no longer acceptable, regardless of what it actually ends up costing. I'm pretty sure the ReVive isn't going to include a controller. Since that's where your line in the sand is, that's your solution. Being upset because the Rift isn't being made just for you is ridiculous.
I'm making an argument about the decision to include the controller. Not that it isn't for me. That I don't want a controller simply means I have a dog in the fight. You're purposely trying to mischaracterize my posts.
Are you capable of making a rational argument for the inclusion of the controller?
Not everybody have a controller.
That's not an argument for its inclusion. That's an argument for why someone might want one. You could purchase it separately.
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
So VR-Gaming with Occulus ideally needs my rig to output a stable 90 frames per second for each eye. Looking at how important a stable performance is for an optimal VR-experience, and how PC is an open platform, where users essentially have to optimize their hardware to the experience, rather than developers optimizing the experience for the platform, I don't see how VR on PC will ever speak to any audience outside of the hardest core tech fetishists out there.
I'm pretty hardcore about gaming myself, spending lots of my freetime and money on it, but I was never big on PC gaming. I rarely upgrade my rig, usually just when I need to repair something that's broken, and every 5-10 years when I get an all new box. I find tinkering to be a bothersome hassle, and a potentially bottomless moneypit. I don't see myself being willing to upkeep a VR-ready rig constantly. Every frame counts. Supposedly it makes the difference between bending over a puke bucket, and having a great time.
So yeah, eventually companies serious about VR gaming will have to establish hardware standards for the processing of VR-games. If the consumers are responsible for optimizing the experience by constantly upgrading their hardware and tweaking the software, it simply won't have much mass market potential. Too few are willing to spend their time and money to constantly fine-tune their gaming/VR experience.
Right now, the only somewhat interesting VR proposition for me is Sony's Morpheus, because it takes all the responsibility for optimization out of my hands. That said, I don't see them pushing the envelope all too far with the given hardware limitations. I'm pretty certain we'll soon get console-like hardware out of Occulus and Valve, because otherwise I just don't see it taking off outside of the hardest of core PC and tech fetish audiences. I guess it'll be another couple of years before sufficient processing power will be affordable enough to make that happen.
Well, not every game needs to look like Witcher 3. My rig can pump Doom 2 at some ridiculous FPS, for example.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The argument for the inclusion has already been presented by Oculus. They wanted a baseline common gaming controller for developers, something that flat out doesn't exist on PC.
The argument for the inclusion has already been presented by Oculus. They wanted a baseline common gaming controller for developers, something that flat out doesn't exist on PC.
Exactly, so some people might already have controllers but by packing one in with the Rift they're able to guarantee everyone that buys a Rift will have at least that controller so devs can plan control schemes accordingly.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
Sure it is. You're saying since there's no benefit to you specifically by the Rift including a controller, the price point is no longer acceptable, regardless of what it actually ends up costing. I'm pretty sure the ReVive isn't going to include a controller. Since that's where your line in the sand is, that's your solution. Being upset because the Rift isn't being made just for you is ridiculous.
I'm making an argument about the decision to include the controller. Not that it isn't for me. That I don't want a controller simply means I have a dog in the fight. You're purposely trying to mischaracterize my posts.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
0
drunkenpandarenSlapping all the goblin hamIn the top laneRegistered Userregular
Also you can use Rift to sit in a virtual living room and play streamed Xbox One games projected onto a wall.
....okay?
It actually works out. Because most games aren't built around for VR, people get nauseated. I was playing around in Deus Ex: Human Revolution and got sick from that until I set my display drivers to throw me in a VR living room. Helped a lot from the nausea. The Xbox One part pretty much just gives anyone with an Xbox One a library of games they already own to play in 3D.
KBM controls work with a Rift just fine. But I can see why using a controller is recommended. Mostly because I lose my arms in meatspace when I'm sitting around in VR for a while. I knocked my cat over my desk because I lost my mouse in meatspace while wearing VR sunglasses at night in HR.
All I want from the CV1 is just a higher pixel density on the screen. DK2 is nice, but there is some wire mesh going on with the screen since it's technically all up in my face. They can keep the 1080p, but that PPI needs to go up.
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
Sure it is. You're saying since there's no benefit to you specifically by the Rift including a controller, the price point is no longer acceptable, regardless of what it actually ends up costing. I'm pretty sure the ReVive isn't going to include a controller. Since that's where your line in the sand is, that's your solution. Being upset because the Rift isn't being made just for you is ridiculous.
I'm making an argument about the decision to include the controller. Not that it isn't for me. That I don't want a controller simply means I have a dog in the fight. You're purposely trying to mischaracterize my posts.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
Uh yeah, and? Did you not read the rest of the post or my other posts? That isn't the crux of my argument. I admitted I had a dog in the fight, but there's more to the argument than that. Clearly you can read my posts, so I don't know what your problem is.
The argument for the inclusion has already been presented by Oculus. They wanted a baseline common gaming controller for developers, something that flat out doesn't exist on PC.
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Taranis on
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
I think at the end of the day Microsoft just threw a ton of cash to have some skin in the VR game.
Seems dumb that I need to buy a second XBone controller to own an Oculus.
Seems really dumb to bundle one at all.
No it doesn't, see my post above. VR input is still an area with lots of possibilities and no established standards. That makes it hard for developers to target their games at specific input devices. This circumvents that, even if the actual input solution is as vanilla as they come.
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
I'd guess because the controller always stays in your hand and you don't have to move it around, so you won't end up, say, shifting your hand slightly and losing your home keys for a bit, or losing track of your mouse. You don't have that problem with a screen because you can see where your hands are at all times.
Syngyne on
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
It seems like the smart thing to do would be to have a Rift without the controller, then one with it bundled in that's cheaper than the price of buying both separately.
which defeats the entire purpose of bundling at all
unlike normal PC software, you can't target the use of a mouse and keyboard with VR, because they don't work well as input.
Given that KBAM is the only input device you can assume all PC users have, without a different universal input, VR applications would be incredibly difficult to develop for.
So VR-Gaming with Occulus ideally needs my rig to output a stable 90 frames per second for each eye. Looking at how important a stable performance is for an optimal VR-experience, and how PC is an open platform, where users essentially have to optimize their hardware to the experience, rather than developers optimizing the experience for the platform, I don't see how VR on PC will ever speak to any audience outside of the hardest core tech fetishists out there.
I'm pretty hardcore about gaming myself, spending lots of my freetime and money on it, but I was never big on PC gaming. I rarely upgrade my rig, usually just when I need to repair something that's broken, and every 5-10 years when I get an all new box. I find tinkering to be a bothersome hassle, and a potentially bottomless moneypit. I don't see myself being willing to upkeep a VR-ready rig constantly. Every frame counts. Supposedly it makes the difference between bending over a puke bucket, and having a great time.
So yeah, eventually companies serious about VR gaming will have to establish hardware standards for the processing of VR-games. If the consumers are responsible for optimizing the experience by constantly upgrading their hardware and tweaking the software, it simply won't have much mass market potential. Too few are willing to spend their time and money to constantly fine-tune their gaming/VR experience.
Right now, the only somewhat interesting VR proposition for me is Sony's Morpheus, because it takes all the responsibility for optimization out of my hands. That said, I don't see them pushing the envelope all too far with the given hardware limitations. I'm pretty certain we'll soon get console-like hardware out of Occulus and Valve, because otherwise I just don't see it taking off outside of the hardest of core PC and tech fetish audiences. I guess it'll be another couple of years before sufficient processing power will be affordable enough to make that happen.
Well, not every game needs to look like Witcher 3. My rig can pump Doom 2 at some ridiculous FPS, for example.
I've no doubt you can make cool VR-games with limited processing power. There will be mindblowing VR-experiences on Morpheus for example. It's just not going to look particularly great fidelity-wise. Lower poly count, lower texture resulotion, more limited lighting and particle effects and whatnot, than I am used to in traditional gaming experiences.
What I'm saying is that more so than ever before in gaming, optimization is what makes VR-experiences work. Framerate drops and similar hitches - an absolute no-go for VR, at least according to all I've gather from all the coverage and informed opinions on the matter. If it is truely so, it is blatantly obvious to me that putting the responsibility for optimization on the consumer is not a viable business model for VR outside of the extremest enthusiast market.
So yeah, Occulus and Valve will have to enter the hardware business one way or another. Occulus' partnership with Microsoft might dramatically expand with future Xbox iterations for example. Valve will have to expand on the Steambox concept, likely requiring the box makers to adhere to much more rigid specificiations to qualify for the SteamBox branding. Sony will have the easiest job marketing VR in the short term, simply because Sony is shooting for a fixed target. The PS4 hardware is known, and unchanging. The requirements for a smooth good feeling VR-experience is a known too. It's much easier to get the software to harmonize with the hardware when one isn't aiming at a moving target, as one does on PC.
Sure, you can just limit yourself to VR-experiences that will work optimally with your PC, though I doubt that's how this kind of thing plays out normally. You'll either keep throwing money at it and/or tinker with game settings and drivers and whatnot, essentially you will have to become a full-time VR hobbyist, or your VR-experience will soon turn from a joy to a puke bucket laden experience of utter frustration. I just don't see mass market VR on an open platform flurishing. Only the hardest of core audiences can be reached there.
So yeah, VR-specific standardized processing hardware will happen, and will happen soon. Occulus and Valve and whoever else is serious about bringing VR to the mass market, they'll all eventually have to release something along the lines of a console, or partner with a manufacturer of such goods.
BranniganSepp on
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Yeah, and there's no way to get current AAA fidelity at the frame rates needed to work well with VR; unless you have some sort of god computer.
But a lot of that can be made up with good art direction.
0
drunkenpandarenSlapping all the goblin hamIn the top laneRegistered Userregular
I think at the end of the day Microsoft just threw a ton of cash to have some skin in the VR game.
I don't really think that's so much the case, sure they probably tossed money at them, but not a crazy amount to warrant crazy ideas. Because even without VR. Microsoft's controller is pretty much the default input device when it comes to controllers for many many games on PC anyways. Bundling the Rift with a Xbox controller is natural since for many people, it's already the standard controller for them, even if they don't have an Xbox.
Origin: HaxtonWasHere
Steam: pandas_gota_gun
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Well it isn't just the controller, they also added in Xbone support.
Posts
Why does VR necessitate a universal input method unlike playing games on screens?
Because trying to target all of the different VR input devices out there is a nightmare for a developer. You not only have to integrate all of the relevant APIs or plugins to make the specific hardware work, you also have to design your input systems on the UI side to work with all of them equally well. And even then there's a chance that you've forgotten one whose popularity you couldn't foresee. Or your game works particularly well on one of them, and your customers will say "Well, I don't have that obscure eye-tracking device, so this game isn't worth buying for me."
It's a big can of worms, and this neatly sidesteps it.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
That doesnt answer my question. This is all stuff that's not inherently different from conventional PC development.
It seems like your argument boils down to 'it's intended to remove user preference from the equation and that makes things easier for developers'. That's not a good thing.
I already have an Xbox controller and might end up with an xbone controller before I buy a rift, none of this benefits me in any way. My situation is not so unusual that it would really benefit developers either.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Star Citizen's Oculus Rift implementation isn't there at all as far as I know. They haven't devoted much (if any) resources to it yet as they're waiting on Crytek to implement Rift support into the Crysis engine itself.
I've read as such, though people seem to say that while the DK2 never got official support, the DK1 should be a matter of a single button press.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Put it this way: most big developers hate nonstandard hardware. Having to redesign everything for different controllers is a giant pain, as it often necessitates redesigning the entire game. That's why most big developers took one look at the Wiimote and said "eh, fuck that." (And I liked the Wiimote.)
Then again, standard hardware only gets you so far, as Nintendo's learned with the Wii U tablet (which has exactly as many inputs as everyone else).
Right, but the PCs everywhere have the mouse and keyboard which are generally regarded as preferable anyway. That's a draw for many gamers on the platform.
Furthermore, pandering to the developers over the consumer is a huge mistake. Developers have made games on PC for awhile now without needing a different control standard. What's changed so much that they need to potentially force consumers to purchase a second controller? Or a first that they don't want?
It feels like Microsoft's trying to take advantage of its partnership to gain marketing and money. Or something. I really can't wrap my head around how this is beneficial for me and everyone else.
There is also the issue of standing experiences, I think in most cases a controller will be better suited for that. I have no idea what type of marketing they are doing for this but if they plan to put it into retail stores with demos a controller is definitely the way to go vs keyboard and mouse especially for standing.
The bundling thing is plain stupid and is more of Microsoft's strategy of just trying to force unnecessary equipment on people to get them locked into Microsoft stuff. They'll try to spin it as beneficial for the end user, but they really don't give a shit about that and just want their stuff in as many homes as possible.
The fact that shitloads of people already have Microsoft gamepads for PC play makes it just that much dumber, since now people will get stuck with the OR costing more for a second device they already have. Allowing the end user to remap their controls to whatever device they own is not fucking rocket science (I have a joystick that's over decade old and is still readily recognized by every game I own that allows remapping); the issue is that publishers are insanely lazy and cheap for not simply using the solution of planning for gamepads and allowing control remapping for whatever people own.
If a controller is recommended that's fine, but they're forcing you to buy one. The Rift isn't a piece of hardware that's designed for the lowest common denominator PC owner. No, it requires top end specs. An enthusiast already has the motivation to go out and buy a controller if they feel they need one, and likely already has one, but they're forcing us to get one by packaging it with a the Rift. It doesn't matter if they feel that it's the best controller for VR, which itself feels like a dubious claim given that we'll play it on various future and preexisting games. Hell, the primary games I want it for won't require controllers. I'd think that the Rift would excel on first person games which is the KBAM's niche.
They have confirmed that a Xbone controller will be bundled with every Rift. It won't be free.
I'm pretty hardcore about gaming myself, spending lots of my freetime and money on it, but I was never big on PC gaming. I rarely upgrade my rig, usually just when I need to repair something that's broken, and every 5-10 years when I get an all new box. I find tinkering to be a bothersome hassle, and a potentially bottomless moneypit. I don't see myself being willing to upkeep a VR-ready rig constantly. Every frame counts. Supposedly it makes the difference between bending over a puke bucket, and having a great time.
So yeah, eventually companies serious about VR gaming will have to establish hardware standards for the processing of VR-games. If the consumers are responsible for optimizing the experience by constantly upgrading their hardware and tweaking the software, it simply won't have much mass market potential. Too few are willing to spend their time and money to constantly fine-tune their gaming/VR experience.
Right now, the only somewhat interesting VR proposition for me is Sony's Morpheus, because it takes all the responsibility for optimization out of my hands. That said, I don't see them pushing the envelope all too far with the given hardware limitations. I'm pretty certain we'll soon get console-like hardware out of Occulus and Valve, because otherwise I just don't see it taking off outside of the hardest of core PC and tech fetish audiences. I guess it'll be another couple of years before sufficient processing power will be affordable enough to make that happen.
And if they hit their $300 targeted price point? Will it still be worth complaining that there's a bundled controller?
Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I have a 360 wired controller, but if the Rift comes with a new one, and it's wireless, then fine. If not, oh well. If the controller is such an objectionable inclusion, then get a ReVive.
Is Microsoft providing the controller at no cost to the consumer? If not then absolutely.
Suggesting that I get a revive isn't a valid counterargument.
I love the instructions:
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Sure it is. You're saying since there's no benefit to you specifically by the Rift including a controller, the price point is no longer acceptable, regardless of what it actually ends up costing. I'm pretty sure the ReVive isn't going to include a controller. Since that's where your line in the sand is, that's your solution. Being upset because the Rift isn't being made just for you is ridiculous.
I'm making an argument about the decision to include the controller. Not that it isn't for me. That I don't want a controller simply means I have a dog in the fight. You're purposely trying to mischaracterize my posts.
Are you capable of making a rational argument for the inclusion of the controller?
Not everybody have a controller.
Yeah, and way more work to setup.
That's not an argument for its inclusion. That's an argument for why someone might want one. You could purchase it separately.
Well, not every game needs to look like Witcher 3. My rig can pump Doom 2 at some ridiculous FPS, for example.
Exactly, so some people might already have controllers but by packing one in with the Rift they're able to guarantee everyone that buys a Rift will have at least that controller so devs can plan control schemes accordingly.
It actually works out. Because most games aren't built around for VR, people get nauseated. I was playing around in Deus Ex: Human Revolution and got sick from that until I set my display drivers to throw me in a VR living room. Helped a lot from the nausea. The Xbox One part pretty much just gives anyone with an Xbox One a library of games they already own to play in 3D.
KBM controls work with a Rift just fine. But I can see why using a controller is recommended. Mostly because I lose my arms in meatspace when I'm sitting around in VR for a while. I knocked my cat over my desk because I lost my mouse in meatspace while wearing VR sunglasses at night in HR.
All I want from the CV1 is just a higher pixel density on the screen. DK2 is nice, but there is some wire mesh going on with the screen since it's technically all up in my face. They can keep the 1080p, but that PPI needs to go up.
Steam: pandas_gota_gun
Uh yeah, and? Did you not read the rest of the post or my other posts? That isn't the crux of my argument. I admitted I had a dog in the fight, but there's more to the argument than that. Clearly you can read my posts, so I don't know what your problem is.
I'd guess because the controller always stays in your hand and you don't have to move it around, so you won't end up, say, shifting your hand slightly and losing your home keys for a bit, or losing track of your mouse. You don't have that problem with a screen because you can see where your hands are at all times.
which defeats the entire purpose of bundling at all
unlike normal PC software, you can't target the use of a mouse and keyboard with VR, because they don't work well as input.
Given that KBAM is the only input device you can assume all PC users have, without a different universal input, VR applications would be incredibly difficult to develop for.
I've no doubt you can make cool VR-games with limited processing power. There will be mindblowing VR-experiences on Morpheus for example. It's just not going to look particularly great fidelity-wise. Lower poly count, lower texture resulotion, more limited lighting and particle effects and whatnot, than I am used to in traditional gaming experiences.
What I'm saying is that more so than ever before in gaming, optimization is what makes VR-experiences work. Framerate drops and similar hitches - an absolute no-go for VR, at least according to all I've gather from all the coverage and informed opinions on the matter. If it is truely so, it is blatantly obvious to me that putting the responsibility for optimization on the consumer is not a viable business model for VR outside of the extremest enthusiast market.
So yeah, Occulus and Valve will have to enter the hardware business one way or another. Occulus' partnership with Microsoft might dramatically expand with future Xbox iterations for example. Valve will have to expand on the Steambox concept, likely requiring the box makers to adhere to much more rigid specificiations to qualify for the SteamBox branding. Sony will have the easiest job marketing VR in the short term, simply because Sony is shooting for a fixed target. The PS4 hardware is known, and unchanging. The requirements for a smooth good feeling VR-experience is a known too. It's much easier to get the software to harmonize with the hardware when one isn't aiming at a moving target, as one does on PC.
Sure, you can just limit yourself to VR-experiences that will work optimally with your PC, though I doubt that's how this kind of thing plays out normally. You'll either keep throwing money at it and/or tinker with game settings and drivers and whatnot, essentially you will have to become a full-time VR hobbyist, or your VR-experience will soon turn from a joy to a puke bucket laden experience of utter frustration. I just don't see mass market VR on an open platform flurishing. Only the hardest of core audiences can be reached there.
So yeah, VR-specific standardized processing hardware will happen, and will happen soon. Occulus and Valve and whoever else is serious about bringing VR to the mass market, they'll all eventually have to release something along the lines of a console, or partner with a manufacturer of such goods.
But a lot of that can be made up with good art direction.
I don't really think that's so much the case, sure they probably tossed money at them, but not a crazy amount to warrant crazy ideas. Because even without VR. Microsoft's controller is pretty much the default input device when it comes to controllers for many many games on PC anyways. Bundling the Rift with a Xbox controller is natural since for many people, it's already the standard controller for them, even if they don't have an Xbox.
Steam: pandas_gota_gun