|
Lemming posted:In the past 6 years they've made The Lab and Artifact sell me =/= make
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
I heard the epic games store is where it's at for buying games these days. But while we are trying to compare the comparitive worth of giant companies Oculus has probably funded more vr game development than anyone else so far except possibly Sony. mashed fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:I heard the epic games store is where it's at for buying games these days. The Epic Games Store is literally spyware, do not install their client. sethsez posted:And the PS3 was made to go against the 360, but we still saw how that launch turned out. It could very well be that they can't compete on price so they're going to be pushing features as hard as possible. I get where you're coming from, and largely agree, but to be fair Sony learned a hard lesson from that one and, well, "...$399". Neddy Seagoon fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
I'm going for the boring option and guessing that the expansion slot is just for development. It can be very useful to have direct access to various parts of the board without having to open it up all the time. For example, if the software devs keep bricking the firmware it would be way easier to just plug into the slot and reflash the chip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:I get where you're coming from, and largely agree, but to be fair Sony learned a hard lesson from that one and, well, "...$399". And oddly enough the same thing happened to Oculus, right down to the prices. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
sethsez posted:And oddly enough the same thing happened to Oculus, right down to the prices. Just for some fun spitballing, there is one last thing Valve could do to just deeply poo poo on the Rift S at this point assuming it can do inside-out tracking; Make a reference SDK of the Index and give it to the companies making WMR headsets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:The Epic Games Store is literally spyware, do not install their client. It’s not, it’s fine. The reddit post that “exposed” all of this was a guy that was misinterpreting what he was looking at, then online “journalists” ran with it. It’s been responded to by developers at Epic including their CEO. The epic games store is just a web page running an an application wrapper. Web pages having tracking code that monitors and logs user interaction. Including the one you’re looking at right now to read this post (even if it’s in the app). That’s what half of the “spying” accusations were. The other half was the installer caching a copy of steam’s local config file to facilitate matching of steam friends to epic accounts. Everything else the guy “discovered” was noise caused by the tools he was using to “uncover” this “tracking travesty.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:It’s not, it’s fine. The reddit post that “exposed” all of this was a guy that was misinterpreting what he was looking at, then online “journalists” ran with it. "It's not spyware" - spyware developer, 2019
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Sigourney Cheevos posted:"It's not spyware" - spyware developer, 2019 I mean, it’s really easy to verify if any of this poo poo is being sent back to epic, and none of it is. But if you prefer internet panic, have at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:I mean, it’s really easy to verify if any of this poo poo is being sent back to epic, and none of it is. But if you prefer internet panic, have at it. Personally not really cool at all with them making copies of my steam contacts and stuff when I have them specifically set to private on Steam, they have a perfectly workable api for accessing your friends in other games, no sneaky poo poo needed. Their store being the most bare bones worthless platform with no features made uninstalling an easy choice from there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Just for some fun spitballing, there is one last thing Valve could do to just deeply poo poo on the Rift S at this point assuming it can do inside-out tracking; Make a reference SDK of the Index and give it to the companies making WMR headsets. Valve, Oculus, and Microsoft already collaborate on OpenXR (along with like ~30 others) with a lot of material work being donated to it by Oculus. This knowledge has been public for like a year or so now, and the spec was also made public at GDC (with press about it). Doctor w-rw-rw- fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Just like to interrupt the INSIDE OUTSIDE debate to remind everyone that compound is still really good, and has gotten a fair few updates with new enemies/levels/weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Hey your ignorance of actual VR tech is showing Not even close to what I was talking about. Oculus has been trying to set the tone with the Rift S by showing they have the bestest WMR headset of all, with Oculus controllers and games, and everyone should buy theirs. The Index showing up isn't exactly great for the reasons we've all talked about already, but what'd be worse is if they licensed it out to the WMR-making companies to let them play with the new toys. Now everyone's making Knuckle-controlled scaleable headsets with mechanical IPD's except Oculus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Do we have any idea when the next info dump might be? Any upcoming conferences or stuff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Oculus has been trying to set the tone with the Rift S by showing they have the bestest WMR headset of all A headset having inside-out tracking doesn't make it WMR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
I think for certain we'll know something in May.Neddy Seagoon posted:Not even close to what I was talking about. Oculus has been trying to set the tone with the Rift S by showing they have the bestest WMR headset of all, with Oculus controllers and games, and everyone should buy theirs. The Index showing up isn't exactly great for the reasons we've all talked about already, but what'd be worse is if they licensed it out to the WMR-making companies to let them play with the new toys. Now everyone's making Knuckle-controlled scaleable headsets with mechanical IPD's except Oculus. License what out? Valve seems pretty open with their API and technology. If someone wanted to use the lighthouse stuff, they could, as Pimax has, and I think Lenovo once hinted at using it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I think for certain we'll know something in May. I just meant more a general reference headset as a whole, similar to the WMR ones as a spitballed idea. And yeah, I fully expect we'll get more details in May rather than an actual release date. It's close enough that if sometime in May was the big day it'd have a date and probably more information. sethsez posted:A headset having inside-out tracking doesn't make it WMR. Looks and quacks like a duck, the average consumer's not going to know the difference or care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I think for certain we'll know something in May. Yeah, Valve's tech has been available, companies just haven't been terribly eager to take them up on it outside of HTC and Pimax. I can't imagine Valve provides the kind of support and guidance that Microsoft does. Neddy Seagoon posted:Looks and quacks like a duck, the average consumer's not going to know the difference or care. The average consumer still calls the Rift "the Oculus" and doesn't know what the gently caress WMR is. Joe Consumer isn't going to look at a Rift S and think "oh, isn't this similar to a Dell Visor?" They'll think "oh I guess there's a new Oculus." WMR sucks because the tracking area is exclusively front-facing and the controllers are terrible, and both of those issues are addressed in the Rift S. sethsez fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Didn't Valve just lay off most of their VR hardware division? Seems kinda weird to do that if they actually think the product has a future, i half expect this to be a hardware dump. Prove me wrong Gabe
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Oculus has been trying to set the tone with the Rift S by showing they have the bestest WMR headset of all, with Oculus controllers and games, and everyone should buy theirs. 2. Assuming the objective is what you think it is and that the strategy is as simplistic as you're able to come up with 3. Competing by building better VR technology and software? The nerve! Neddy Seagoon posted:The Index showing up isn't exactly great for the reasons we've all talked about already, but what'd be worse is if they licensed it out to the WMR-making companies to let them play with the new toys. 2. Worse for what - Product? Industry? VR tech? 3. Competing by building better VR technology and software? Man, how great! Okay, so let's lay this out: There's more work to be done than engineers in the industry capable of doing it. The hardware side of the industry in the first place is a money sink until it pays off. Abrash is clearly doing R&D on both AR and VR tech. Carmack is doing whatever Carmack does. Oculus puts out a narrow and consistent slate of devices with known limitations. Other companies step up to build products and figure out the market, Oculus steps up to contribute research and technology. VR grows. Everybody I don't think there's a clear downside here. Neddy Seagoon posted:Now everyone's making Knuckle-controlled scaleable headsets with mechanical IPD's except Oculus. Hardware takes ages to build, validate, manufacture, and ship. If everyone does the same thing and fails then VR fails. If companies try different things and only some of them fail, then it's good data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
wyoak posted:Didn't Valve just lay off most of their VR hardware division? Seems kinda weird to do that if they actually think the product has a future, i half expect this to be a hardware dump. Prove me wrong Gabe Go back in time a few weeks to the vive subreddit and see all the email replies people got from Gabe saying VR is still a thing at Valve. The layoffs were from something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Okay, so let's lay this out: Except that's not what Oculus is doing. Their only real focus right now (and probably going forward) is pretty obviously the Quest, not the Rift S. Everything they've done and innovated has gone into their darling little money-printing VR console first and foremost. It's all they quite probably give two shits about now, and PCVR can really go hang for them in long-term because they WILL hold the stand-alone VR monopoly for the foreseeable future. The Rift S is frankly cheap in ways it should not be for an Oculus device, and looks more like they just palmed the job off to Lenovo as a quick money-maker than an actual Rift 1.5. Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:You have this really strong notion of what VR should be. That notion in your head is not what it is – frankly nobody's vision lines up with reality. But strategically, making devices that compete on exactly the same playing field doesn't survive dramatic shifts in the playing field. Yup, except Oculus did not learn that lesson, or they just don't care. The only reason to make something as basic as the Rift S is if they believed nothing would exist to compete against it any time soon, and there is no "good data" to be gained from it. Cojawfee posted:Go back in time a few weeks to the vive subreddit and see all the email replies people got from Gabe saying VR is still a thing at Valve. The layoffs were from something else. Wasn't some of it him saying they were also contractors wrapping up existing projects? Or was that part of the initial panic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
My not-at-all techie sister loved playing in VR and the Oculus Quest looks like something I could get for her and her kids for Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Except that's not what Oculus is doing. Their only real focus right now (and probably going forward) is pretty obviously the Quest, not the Rift S. Everything they've done and innovated has gone into their darling little money-printing VR console first and foremost. It's all they quite probably give two shits about now, and PCVR can really go hang for them in long-term because they WILL hold the stand-alone VR monopoly for the foreseeable future. The Rift S is frankly cheap in ways it should not be for an Oculus device, and looks more like they just palmed the job off to Lenovo as a quick money-maker than an actual Rift 1.5. Jesus christ I cannot handle reading these loving posts over and over. You're only supposed to put one space after every period. Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
Double Spacing Is Legitimate
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
homeless snail posted:Double Spacing Is Legitimate Yup. It's how I was taught to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
Which circle of hell is this thread!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:Wait. I always thought vive lighthouses were just led lights? They have moving parts? What in the heck https://youtu.be/75ZytcYANTA?t=491  The cost of a base station is definitely a drawback - they are a precise instrument and building them cheaply and reliably is a challenge if you're trying to build budget HMDs. EDIT: Hell, even each of the sensors needs specialty analog circuitry to work right. Adding dozens of these per tracked object pushes the BOM cost up too. https://www.triadsemi.com/product/ts4231/. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Except that's not what Oculus is doing. Neddy Seagoon posted:Their only real focus right now (and probably going forward) is pretty obviously the Quest, not the Rift S. Neddy Seagoon posted:Everything they've done and innovated has gone into their darling little money-printing VR console first and foremost. Neddy Seagoon posted:It's all they quite probably give two shits about now, and PCVR can really go hang for them in long-term because they WILL hold the stand-alone VR monopoly for the foreseeable future. Neddy Seagoon posted:The Rift S is frankly cheap in ways it should not be for an Oculus device, and looks more like they just palmed the job off to Lenovo as a quick money-maker than an actual Rift 1.5. Again, assumptions. Neddy Seagoon posted:Yup, except Oculus did not learn that lesson, or they just don't care. The only reason to make something as basic as the Rift S is if they believed nothing would exist to compete against it any time soon, and there is no "good data" to be gained from it. On what basis are you so confident that the negativity in your head is how things really are?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
At least people itt aren't arguing about the very important secret of why its called the Index, and the bullshit that's definitely hidden under the model's thumbs, like on Reddit
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Valve Index is going to suck your dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:https://youtu.be/75ZytcYANTA?t=491 The v2.0 Lighthouses are apparently much cheaper to produce. A bit of general digging came across a reddit post here on the pricing for standalone ones. Apparently Valve makes them themselves in the US and sells them to OEM's for $60USD per-unit in bulk for repackaging. Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Again, assumptions. Yes, they are assumptions and you're the only one blindly-determined to take them as absolute fact. That's how discussion works on a device that isn't out yet; You draw from what you can see and know, then discuss. Here's some basic facts for you; Oculus is a company, and they want to turn a profit. The shortest and safest revenue path to that in the VR marketplace is the Quest. The Rift S can languish on shelves or it could sell okay, and at the end of the day Oculus do not have to give it a second thought because the Quest will just about literally print money from day-one just off being a Beat Saber machine. And they will want those sales to continue because they are a multinational company, so they will focus further innovation on the standalone VR platform that has zero competition and potentially gets more developers pumping out games that they don't have to pay upfront for down the line. They don't have to collaborate, they don't have to share their toys with competitors in the same marketplace for standardization, they can just sit fat and happy on a very lucrative monopoly for a good couple of years at least. Hell, even if the Index were to somehow be capable of being a standalone console device on top of everything else, the Quest would still be the better device at its price point and capabilities. Oculus have always been about having their walled garden, and they simply can't do better than a standalone device they own outright. Also as for OpenXR; quote:When I asked Rubin if this was still on the roadmap for Oculus, he said he wasn’t up to date on the company’s OpenXR plans. And while Oculus publicly committed last week to providing an OpenXR app runtime, our understanding is that this is primarily focused on allowing developers to easily port apps into the Oculus ecosystem, not enabling support for third-party headsets. Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Assuming. Reusing engineering, parts, and software? Determining that the overlap was worth making good on a partnership agreement with Lenovo? Hedging potential risks? All plausible. Why would their first stop for re-using engineering not be the Quest? Casing, lenses, display mounts, sensors, whatever's driving the positional tracking. All things that can be reused for a tethered device. There's simply no real reason for Oculus to partner out when the Quest looks like a pretty viable set of parts for re-use already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
The Rift S will also suck dicks but it's only optimized for 70% of the population
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:The Rift S will also suck dicks but it's only optimized for 70% of the population Oculus hates foreskin 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
Shine posted:Oculus hates foreskin drat it, I laughed  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Yes, they are assumptions and you're the only one blindly-determined to take them as absolute fact. That's how discussion works on a device that isn't out yet; You draw from what you can see and know, then discuss. It would help if you put any effort into indicating guesses, assumptions, and certainties. Neddy Seagoon posted:Here's some basic facts for you; Oculus is a company, and they want to turn a profit. "basic facts" Neddy Seagoon posted:The shortest and safest revenue path to that in the VR marketplace is the Quest. The Rift S can languish on shelves or it could sell okay, and at the end of the day Oculus do not have to give it a second thought because the Quest will just about literally print money from day-one just off being a Beat Saber machine. And they will want those sales to continue because they are a multinational company, so they will focus further innovation on the standalone VR platform that has zero competition and potentially gets more developers pumping out games that they don't have to pay upfront for down the line. Also, with Facebook behind it, don't you think trading 'short' for 'safe' would be better? If they can rake in those ad dollars from having the biggest social network literally in front of everyone's face all the time, the specific hardware is less important, because if you have a killer app you only need a major slice of the hardware pie to influence it in the ways you want. Neddy Seagoon posted:They don't have to collaborate, they don't have to share their toys with competitors in the same marketplace for standardization, they can just sit fat and happy on a very lucrative monopoly for a good couple of years at least. Hell, even if the Index were to somehow be capable of being a standalone console device on top of everything else, the Quest would still be the better device at its price point and capabilities. Oculus have always been about having their walled garden, and they simply can't do better than a standalone device they own outright. It may not be a strategy by itself but I think it unlikely it was only considered in a vacuum. This doesn't contradict you but you are being very reductive. Watch the GDC Khronos State of the Union Part 2 and you'll notice that they outline that of the two parts of OpenXR, app portability and device portability, the companies are choosing to focus on app portability for 1.0. You're quoting a secondary source not a primary one, and the primary source mentioned admitted not being up to date. Still doesn't really poo poo on the Rift S - and in any case it's compatible with the Rift so it's not exactly changing the compatibility landscape. In a convoluted way an argument could be made that it makes desktop developers care more about Quest tracking constraints, rather than the Rift's superior tracking but more onerous setup, and dangles incentives for developers and users to accept that this is the best way forward for tracking to develop. I do wish there were an external camera for the Rift S, though, because I think that would justify the Rift S beyond question. Neddy Seagoon posted:Why would their first stop for re-using engineering not be the Quest? Casing, lenses, display mounts, sensors, whatever's driving the positional tracking. All things that can be reused for a tethered device. There's simply no real reason for Oculus to partner out when the Quest looks like a pretty viable set of parts for re-use already. We've heard that the Quest was based on some of the Rift work. If two different teams worked on Quest and Rift S then it kinda makes sense that people who worked on the Go might have moved onto the S and if that's the case, all the more reason to reuse the engineering and manufacturing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:27
|
|
|
It's always hilarious to me when people insist that Oculus is giving up on PC VR despite them essentially being the only publisher pumping decent money in PC VR game development, when every other large publisher released their experiments in early 2017 and then gave up. I get being disappointed in the Rift S (the IPD thing is a massive bummer, and although some early reports are saying it actually works for a pretty broad range of people, I'm going to wait until it's actually out in the wild before fully believing that), but with the massive success of PSVR compared to the rest of the market it's entirely possible Oculus are trying to provide that kind of simplicity and comfort on the PC while offering significantly better tracking, optics and displays, rather than assuming they just gave up on the whole thing. And the partnership with Lenovo is almost certainly because Lenovo have the rights to use that exact headstrap design (they licensed it from Sony late last year).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Also, with Facebook behind it, don't you think trading 'short' for 'safe' would be better? If they can rake in those ad dollars from having the biggest social network literally in front of everyone's face all the time, the specific hardware is less important, because if you have a killer app you only need a major slice of the hardware pie to influence it in the ways you want. If that were really the case, the Oculus storefront would be open on as many platforms as possible. It's not. it's exclusive to Oculus devices and they very much to keep it that way. A standalone VR headset is in line with plan and means they get all those ad dollars on a platform they control with zero competition for it so everyone has to deal with the biggest social network in their face. They're not exactly subtle about wanting you to use a Facebook account with their storefront rather than an Oculus one either, to the point you gotta go hunting for that Oculus-specific login (At least from my experience with the GearVR). Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:While it would be nice for them, I personally don't think the Oculus Store even needs a majority share (and because of Steam, doesn't) of the VR marketplace. The Quest certainly adds value to that, but Oculus' desktop headsets have to grow more mainstream to increase the value of using the Oculus Store. So even if the Quest is the obvious star, it can still make sense to have an overlapping desktop offering. And if the platform is such that developers have to consider how locked in to Facebook they want to be then they may as well remove that question and make it a certainty that they want to. PCVR is a drop in the bucket for the games market, and Oculus desktop headsets mean squat in the face of a device that will potentially sell millions on day one. That is why the Quest is where the money is. Anything new going to the PC storefront (and probably Steam as well, because that's happened to a few Oculus games) is more likely to be because a Quest developer uprezzed the assets and ported it. Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:In a convoluted way an argument could be made that it makes desktop developers care more about Quest tracking constraints, rather than the Rift's superior tracking but more onerous setup, and dangles incentives for developers and users to accept that this is the best way forward for tracking to develop. I do wish there were an external camera for the Rift S, though, because I think that would justify the Rift S beyond question. This is part of why I think the Rift S is unnecessarily cheap in its construction (and I fully agree external tracking would make it far more viable); The parts removed make no sense for the kind of talent we've seen in Oculus engineers with the Quest. Aside from the display being single-panel and all that jazz, there's no real functional reason to remove the Constellation LED's because they're just cheap IR LED's worth cents apiece you can use to sell Constellation cameras after the fact to people, and it's not like the new Touch controllers are as-tailored to being seen from above as the WMR ones are. The decisions on the Rift S only makes sense to me if you look at it coming from a team that has had no/minimal experience working with Oculus hardware but have built a WMR headset or two and started from there. When you look at it beside the Quest, it also looks like someone told an entirely different team to match the Quest's tracking, but only had WMR parts available. It's functionally correct, but it's not exactly elegant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 10:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Someone linked a quote from 2017 from Gaben on reddit laying out the crux of the argument. He basically reckons VR isn't being widely adopted not because it isn't cheap and easy enough but because the experience hasn't been pushed far enough technically to really appeal to non-enthusiasts. I don't know how the rift s will ultimately turn out, maybe the res, sde and fov bump will be sufficient over the rift to convey that much more of an immersive and slick VR, but it seems like it won't come close to what valve's achieved going by what's been leaked so far, even if it's more affordable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 10:34
|
|