[Virtual Reality] StepN2theGAME

Dhalphir

Dhalphir wrote: »

PikaPuff wrote: »

maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, the thread title's bugging me. It reminds me of EA Sports. What's the thought process behind it?

https://web.archive.org/web/20120609050841/http://oculusvr.com/

Why the name “Oculus? Because it is the Latin word for “eye”, and someone used the word in a meeting several months ago. I thought it was a nifty word, and was better than the alternative, “StepN2theGAME”.

And there you have it.

Best,

PalmerTech

Discuss.

Dhalphir

Kept the barebones OP from last time, added the PSVR. If you'd like to see more stuff, feel free to ask. I won't actually, you know, add it, but feel free to ask.

EDIT:

I added a thing from @TimFiji


VR survey for forum users, get registered!

See results here - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XdQaa1Uc_I7BlLcN5KXvbXlFdpGwx-WYkxu6oxrrg8g/edit?usp=sharing

Dhalphir

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTjNnnHUnw

Kashaar

Dhalphir wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTjNnnHUnw

The dog-walking support is especially impressive tbh.

darleysam

Oh this looks super useful
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/4pa2k9/desk_scene_upgrade_check_your_camera_bounds_see/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3htTBxXzq8

https://www.wearvr.com/apps/desk-scene-check-your-camera-bounds

Definitely will give that a try later to see what useful information I can get out of it.

Dhalphir

Tried it out earlier, it's not accurate for range, but it works great for the boundaries.

darleysam

Cool, yeah it's boundaries that I'd find quite handy right now, so that's good.

jdarksun

Might want to add to the OP that the Rift Touch and PSVR aren't released yet (Q4 2016?).

UncleSporky

Luckey points to Sony in defending Oculus exclusives

Oculus is catching a lot of heat for securing exclusive content on the Rift lately, but kit creator, Palmer Luckey, is quick to point out that the company isn’t the only one doing this.

Speaking to TechCrunch in an E3 interview, Luckey pointed to Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) and its upcoming PlayStation VR headset for taking a similar approach to funding and making deals for exclusive games. “You see Sony investing in their content the same way,” he said. “They want to make things that take advantage of their features that they have in the best way possible.”

He continued, noting that he feels this approach is how the VR industry will move going forward, and that this was a good thing in both the short and long-term. That said, Luckey understands the frustration that some HTC Vive owners would feel at not being able to play Rift exclusives on their kit. “The reality is, I can see where that’s painful for some people, but that doesn’t mean that it’s bad for the VR industry, or that it’s fragmenting it, or in the long run, it’s not the right way for the ecosystem to work,” he said.

jdarksun

UncleSporky wrote: »

Luckey points to Sony in defending Oculus exclusives

Oculus is catching a lot of heat for securing exclusive content on the Rift lately, but kit creator, Palmer Luckey, is quick to point out that the company isn’t the only one doing this.

Speaking to TechCrunch in an E3 interview, Luckey pointed to Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) and its upcoming PlayStation VR headset for taking a similar approach to funding and making deals for exclusive games. “You see Sony investing in their content the same way,” he said. “They want to make things that take advantage of their features that they have in the best way possible.”

He continued, noting that he feels this approach is how the VR industry will move going forward, and that this was a good thing in both the short and long-term. That said, Luckey understands the frustration that some HTC Vive owners would feel at not being able to play Rift exclusives on their kit. “The reality is, I can see where that’s painful for some people, but that doesn’t mean that it’s bad for the VR industry, or that it’s fragmenting it, or in the long run, it’s not the right way for the ecosystem to work,” he said.

"I can see where that’s painful for some people, but that doesn’t mean that it’s bad for the VR industry me"
What a goose.

Rius

"We're conducting business like the consoles, which is ok because that's what the consoles are doing" is a mighty circular argument. I sure as hell hope that's not "how the VR industry will move going forward." It's absolutely bad for the VR industry and it's absolutely a fragmenting practice. It's the very definition of the word "fragment!"

Dhalphir

Because the console industry is so unhealthy and near failure?

Like, by all means, criticize exclusives for being anti-consumer if that's how you feel. But there is no possible basis for the statement that they are bad for the industry.

Stifling creativity and rapid innovation by forcing everyone to adhere to a common standard before we even know the limits of the technology is what is bad for the industry.

Rius

Dhalphir wrote: »

Because the console industry is so unhealthy and near failure?

That's not the argument I'm making, that's never the argument I've made, and that's not the point. Haven't we already talked about this? The console industry is healthy and robust, but not to the benefit of console gamers. Nobody wants the console ecosystem on the PC... right?

jdarksun

Dhalphir wrote: »

Because the console industry is so unhealthy and near failure?

One of the many reason people buy PCs is for better control of how they interact with their hobby. Folk like Palmer Luckey want to drive the collapse of the "Bring Your Own Hardware" ecosystem by setting up walled gardens.

That's bad for VR, bad for PC gamers, and bad for gaming in general.

Put more inflammatory: if your hardware sucks so badly that you have to bribe developers into taking advantage of it, you have failed. Put that money into developing a better solution instead of flipping off the rest of the community.

UncleSporky

Rius wrote: »

Dhalphir wrote: »

Because the console industry is so unhealthy and near failure?

That's not the argument I'm making, that's never the argument I've made, and that's not the point. Haven't we already talked about this? The console industry is healthy and robust, but not to the benefit of console gamers. Nobody wants the console ecosystem on the PC... right?

AMD comes out with their new 480 with stellar performance for $200, but whoops, it turns out NVidia made some deals with Bethesda and Take-Two Interactive, arbitrarily can't play any of their games on AMD cards.

But at least AMD got that exclusivity partnership with Unity, so you get to play a good chunk of indie games and lower budget releases that GTX owners don't get to experience.

Kashaar

Ah, quote cherrypicking! Always a fun sport.

“When you’re looking at some of these other things, where sometimes you have devs come to us and say, ‘Hey, we need help finishing our game,’ or ‘we want to make this game bigger and better,’ we ask if those guys launched on Oculus first if we’re going to help them fund that. We don’t ask them to stop developing for other platforms. We don’t tell them they can’t launch on other platforms. In those cases, they are going to be coming out on other platforms aside from Oculus in the future.”

And again, speaking as both a developer and a consumer: If timed exclusivity is the price of being able to either actually finish a game, or to have significantly more resources to finish it, then that is a good thing for the VR industry. It allows devs to make better games, which is better for consumers.

It's been said again and again, but some people seem dead set on ignoring it. These are *timed* exclusives. You know, kind of like Rise of the Tomb Raider coming out on PC a few months after its console release. They're not platform exclusives unless the devs make them that.

jdarksun

Dhalphir wrote: »

Like, by all means, criticize exclusives for being anti-consumer if that's how you feel. But there is no possible basis for the statement that they are bad for the industry.

The entire point of console exclusives is to drive hardware sales. You're walling off content unless people invest in your platform. It's anti-consumer, and thus, bad for the industry. Consider the statement: "I want to play Halo and I want to play Uncharted." The gamer in question would be forced to buy both sets of hardware to play both games; or, rightly, decide not to invest in either platform as both are engaging in behavior that's toxic to consumers.

Dhalphir wrote: »

Stifling creativity and rapid innovation by forcing everyone to adhere to a common standard before we even know the limits of the technology is what is bad for the industry.

Nonsense. Having a common baseline doesn't stop nVidia and AMD from releasing competing graphics cards with different bells and whistles. Meet the core requirements, and add features you think customers will want. If the customers do indeed want those features, they'll vote with their wallets and purchase your products.

Walling off content to try and force customers to buy into your vision is anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

Tube

Does anyone have anything new to say about this

Kashaar

jdarksun wrote: »

Dhalphir wrote: »

Like, by all means, criticize exclusives for being anti-consumer if that's how you feel. But there is no possible basis for the statement that they are bad for the industry.

The entire point of console exclusives is to drive hardware sales. You're walling off content unless people invest in your platform. It's anti-consumer, and thus, bad for the industry. Consider the statement: "I want to play Halo and I want to play Uncharted." The gamer in question would be forced to buy both sets of hardware to play both games; or, rightly, decide not to invest in either platform as both are engaging in behavior that's toxic to consumers.

You're acting like you have some god-given right to the content people produce. And yes, that is precisely the intention: using software as an incentive to make people buy hardware. That's just regular old free market capitalism, I don't know how people can get so upset about it and at the same time condemn any kind of market regulation when it actually concerns things that matter.

Rius

Kashaar wrote: »

And again, speaking as both a developer and a consumer: If timed exclusivity is the price of being able to either actually finish a game, or to have significantly more resources to finish it, then that is a good thing for the VR industry. It allows devs to make better games, which is better for consumers.

It's been said again and again, but some people seem dead set on ignoring it. These are *timed* exclusives. You know, kind of like Rise of the Tomb Raider coming out on PC a few months after its console release. They're not platform exclusives unless the devs make them that.

There are, in fact, infinite exclusives.

The creator remained bullish about the future of exclusives on the Oculus platform, confirming once more that games developed under the Oculus Studios partnership – which include the likes of Insomniac Games’ Edge of Nowhere and Crytek’s The Climb – will remain exclusive to the Rift and Gear.

I don't think any reasonable person has a problem with a temporary exclusive, especially in a situation where Oculus provides funding that means the game is made at all. Nevermind that Valve is apparently also offering to fund VR game development without asking for Vive exclusivity.

What we have a problem with, and I think it's a reasonable complaint, is that Oculus is preventing Vive owners from running Rift games, even if we buy them from the Oculus store. There's no hardware barrier to me running Rift games on my Vive, because currently the Vive can do everything the Rift can do. Just like there's no barrier to me running a "Designed for Radeon" PC game on my Nvidia graphics card. There's only an arbitrary software barrier because Oculus Home games check for the physical presence of a Rift. And they've made it so that bypassing that check also bypasses the check for ownership of the game, which is not something I'm comfortable with.

I'm never going to buy a Rift (just like when I've owned consoles in the past I never owned more than one), so that's money they'll never earn from me. But I might buy games from their store if they'd be so magnanimous as to allow me to run them on my Vive. That's money they would earn from me, if they weren't so pigheaded.

Tube

Dear both sides:

We get it

darleysam

Can I have a VR game where I smash my hand with a hammer repeatedly?

jdarksun

Tube wrote: »

Dear both sides:

We get it

Are you requesting as a mod that we give it a rest? I missed this conversation in the last thread.

Syngyne

darleysam wrote: »

Can I have a VR game where I smash my hand with a hammer repeatedly?

Play this while holding a hammer?

darleysam

Syngyne wrote: »

darleysam wrote: »

Can I have a VR game where I smash my hand with a hammer repeatedly?

Play this while holding a hammer?

You know I suppose that could make for a decent video, so long as it outputs at a usable resolution. I absolutely can't stand spiders but don't know how weirded out I'd be by VR ones.

jdarksun

Kashaar wrote: »

I don't know how people can get so upset about it...

Out of curiosity, do you honestly "don't know how people can get so upset" about the situation, or do you mean that rhetorically?

Stupid

Picking up from the prior thread:

corin7 wrote:

I just hit level 5. Holy shit I love this game. Not yay, in a first VR sort of way. Like I love the moment to moment game play of it. Getting a kill in this is amazing. I find myself like verbally yelling out. I would rather do this than Overwatch by a million miles. People saying this is just circle strafing have no idea what they doing / talking about. Even at low levels there is a ton more than that. Before I hit 5 I had already got to teams using support ships and whatnot and there is going to be a ton of depth here as well. I know a ton of people don't have their headsets yet, and this came out of the gates a little rough but damn if it doesn't just straight up feel like the future.

I remember feeling this same way about playing AirWarrior on a 1200bps modem in 1988. The thing is, flight sim cockpit-style games have a pretty small target market. And VR sims today are pretty much around the same place that online flight sims were in 1988. The people that love them (myself included) are going to REALLY love them! Everyone else is going to collectively go "Meh."

Having said that, I think it's going to be a much shorter line from Eve:Valkyrie to the first _huge_ VR game than it was from AirWarrior in 1988 to Ultima Online in 1997. Back then, gaming as a whole was pretty niche and development tools were practically like banging two rocks together.

Tube

jdarksun wrote: »

Tube wrote: »

Dear both sides:

We get it

Are you requesting as a mod that we give it a rest? I missed this conversation in the last thread.

I'm requesting it as a fellow reader of the thread. I'm not going to throw infraction or anything (on the previous proviso of No Console War Bullshit), but it's fucking exhausting and it feels like essentially anything VR related would be more fun to talk about.

Rius

Here, talk about this game instead

http://www.roadtovr.com/5-minutes-of-blistering-raw-data-gameplay-steam-early-access-july-14th/

Stupid

EDIT: Oops. Sorry, Tube.

Drez

Dhalphir wrote: »

Kept the barebones OP from last time, added the PSVR. If you'd like to see more stuff, feel free to ask. I won't actually, you know, add it, but feel free to ask.

Add videos of you rolling on the floor VRing.

Drez

So I am far (I think) into Edge of Nowhere. Personally, I think it works well as a VR experience but as a full-fledged game it is lacking.

Which has nothing to do with the length of the game, but it feels more like a series of similar set pieces with a perfunctory story than a quality game.

I also picked up Please, Don't Touch Anything from Oculus Home and I have to say that the VR edition is joyous.

Nova_C

It's been over 24 hours since the last tracking update oh my god what's happening to my Rift please deliver it to meeeeeee.

Tube

I bought Euclidean and it looks super awesome and then I booted up Elite Dangerous and fuck it I'm just going to keep playing Elite on this thing forever aren't I?

corin7

Drez wrote: »

So I am far (I think) into Edge of Nowhere. Personally, I think it works well as a VR experience but as a full-fledged game it is lacking.

Which has nothing to do with the length of the game, but it feels more like a series of similar set pieces with a perfunctory story than a quality game.

I also picked up Please, Don't Touch Anything from Oculus Home and I have to say that the VR edition is joyous.

I have only done the first hour or so but could agree that gameplay is light maybe a little lacking. But the atmosphere and story are strong enough that as a launch window title I still feel good about the purchase. Oddly it is the one game that gave my girlfriend twinges of motion sickness. Though only at certain angles.

Of the titles I purchased only The Climb has left me a little cold. I like the idea of it but the straining your neck mechanic is more of a pain than fun for me. Could just be a sensor adjustment would make it better. Will have to play with it some more.

The vast majority of my time is still just getting thrown into EVE. I am 100% in love with it and I haven't done anything but scout missions and team deathmatch so far. Planning on nabbing Chronos, Blazerush and probably House of the Dying Sun next.

corin7

Stupid wrote: »

Picking up from the prior thread:

corin7 wrote:

I just hit level 5. Holy shit I love this game. Not yay, in a first VR sort of way. Like I love the moment to moment game play of it. Getting a kill in this is amazing. I find myself like verbally yelling out. I would rather do this than Overwatch by a million miles. People saying this is just circle strafing have no idea what they doing / talking about. Even at low levels there is a ton more than that. Before I hit 5 I had already got to teams using support ships and whatnot and there is going to be a ton of depth here as well. I know a ton of people don't have their headsets yet, and this came out of the gates a little rough but damn if it doesn't just straight up feel like the future.

I remember feeling this same way about playing AirWarrior on a 1200bps modem in 1988. The thing is, flight sim cockpit-style games have a pretty small target market. And VR sims today are pretty much around the same place that online flight sims were in 1988. The people that love them (myself included) are going to REALLY love them! Everyone else is going to collectively go "Meh."

Having said that, I think it's going to be a much shorter line from Eve:Valkyrie to the first _huge_ VR game than it was from AirWarrior in 1988 to Ultima Online in 1997. Back then, gaming as a whole was pretty niche and development tools were practically like banging two rocks together.

I get this. But also there was a time when X-Wing and Wing Commander were the hottest games out. Then you look at what Star Citizen has done and you wonder if they could have a decent resurgence. Probably wouldn't have been the worst idea for Oculus to have it as a permanent pack in. Even my girlfriend was blown away by it as a tech piece even though she will never seriously play it.

PikaPuff

1 day to steam sale

darleysam

PikaPuff wrote: »

1 day to steam sale

I already have more games than I need, and more VR games than I have time to get through, so it's going to be a hellish time.

GMaster7

I think I'm gonna hop on down to my local Best Buy on my way home and give the in-store PSVR a try.

I mean, I played with it for a few sessions during Pax East, but... I want to try Super Hyper Cube. Or Eve Valkyrie.

Dracil

FYI Best Buy is also selling game cards for B1G1 20% off. So effectively 10% off. Steam Wallet cards included. I am ready for tomorrow.

Kashaar

jdarksun wrote: »

Kashaar wrote: »

I don't know how people can get so upset about it...

Out of curiosity, do you honestly "don't know how people can get so upset" about the situation, or do you mean that rhetorically?

Just rhetorically. I know that from a consumer perspective it sucks when you want to play a PC game on your PC and can't, but I also know that this is a kind of necessary evil in the current market.

The VR game (and software) industry has a bit of a chicken and egg problem at the moment. There needs to be more investment in VR games/experiences/software, in order to attract more users to it and grow the market; but in order for investments to be viable, there need to be more users, i.e. a bigger market. From that perspective, Oculus (and to a lesser degree Valve*) are doing incredibly important work by pumping money into the VR industry.

[*] Valve's advance-on-royalties model doesn't really increase the viability of products in the market, it just shifts risk. With it, you can make an awesome game, but if it doesn't sell like hot cakes, your company might well run out of funding immediately after release, while you wait on royalties that might not start coming until months later. Oculus's free-money-for-timed-exclusivity is a much more attractive proposition, since there's a vested interest of both parties in the success of the product and platform. Oculus gains from promoting your game because it promotes their platform, and at the same time if Oculus's money makes your game awesomer, that's obviously better for you too. Plus, you earn royalties starting immediately.