Oculus Rift Raises Another $16 Million
Craefter writes "It seems that the Oculus Rift virtual-reality headset caught the attention of investors after its showing at E3 this year. Spark Capital and Matrix Partners were able to push $16 million at Oculus VR in the hopes that the product will live up to the hype. The HD unit looks a bit more slick than the ski-goggles-with-a-tablet-glued-to-it prototype, but the device would look even more appealing if the next-gen consoles would commit to supporting it. (We all know how well the PS3's 'wave-stick' did as an afterthought.) That said, major titles like the 9-year-old Half-Life 2 and the 6-year-old Team Fortress 2 are getting full support for the device. Hopefully some developers are looking into support for the Oculus Rift as a launch feature, rather than an addition years after the fact. IA bit like the EAX standard from Soundblaster. That worked out well too."
I am really looking forward to the Oculus' public release, but I really hope they fix the lag in head tracking that results in motion sickness or dizziness in the users. As a guy who used to get nauseous after a few hours of Duke Nukem or Doom, that'd be a pretty major negative in determining whether I will buy one or not.
Also, I'm glad we've finally hit Johnny Mnemonic levels of tech in real life. Bring on the talking dolphins.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Jamie Hyneman Tests the Oculus Rift Virtual Reality Goggles - YouTube
Don't knock it off before you try it. People who tried the the 1080 version loved it (pretty much all the screen-door effect is gone). Plus, there's no point having a 4K or 8K resolution with our current level of graphics processing power, since one of the main requirements for a good VR is at least 60fps. These will come in a few years. Until then, people will enjoy the hell out of playing video games from within, instead of watching it through a rectangle.
First time I've seen this before. First thought that comes to mind is an application allowing two people wearing the devices to engage is some sort of electronically enhanced sexual experience.. I'm not really sure what that would entail as I haven't thought it through completely but there is something waiting to be found.
There are plenty of clever things that can be done to mitigate the resolution issue. One of course is higher resolution. I recall a 3d simulator at an arcade decades ago that did just fine with much lower resolution.
For example look up some of the fake 120hz schemes in use (I think true motion 120 is one of them).
Another is of course the quality of the display units themselves, as well as any associated optics.
4k and 8k (esp. per eye!) would be great. But I think we're a bit off from single card solutions to drive that in 3d games. 4way sli/crossfire with the latest dual gpu cards and lots of fast ram could probably do it though.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Try it before you get too locked into your position. I tried Sony's headset last year and almost forked over $800 for it. Same resolution as the current OR headsets. The main thing that kept me from buying it was the resolution. I agree that it's not sufficient. But it was close. And the consumer OR headsets will almost certainly be 1920x1080. That would be enough of a bump to look pretty darn good.
Would more pixels be better? Of course. But what do we have on the consumer market that can drive 4k displays? Nothin'. Okay, there are a few things that can upscale to 4k at 30Hz so I guess one could claim a few edge cases. And the Mac Pro will be able to improve on that by the end of the year. But that's it. There's simply no point in trying to make a 4k headset until we have something to plug it into and content to deliver.
I don't trust the opinions of all journalists, but I do trust some. Also, there are currently over 6000 DK's out there, and I have communications with many of the people who have them. And NONE, absolutely NONE have found the Oculus Rift a bad experience. Most, even agreeing that the current 720p resolution is low, still have an amazing experience , being immersed in Virtual Reality. I have no doubt the consumer version will spread like wildfire when it's released. About the HMZ, it's absolutely a whole different animal. It's not a VR device. Not only it lacks head tracking, but it also has an extremely small FOV, is very heavy and costs nearly 3x what the Oculus does.
It's been a year since the kickstarter funding and the company formation. They got 2.5M from kickstarter and I suppose another 2.5~3.5 as a personal investment from the current CEO. So they basically had around 6M in the bank at start.
Then they hired a lot of people. I think they have 20 employees in total if my sources are correct. Assuming a average of 100k/person including bonuses/insurance/etc that is at least 2M/year in expenses.
Then there is renting, utilities and taxes. That is another 500k/year at least.
And finally there is the actual development/deployment of the dev kit and promotion(E3 booths, CES, etc) as well as R&D infrastructure build up so there goes most of the rest of the money.
Without this VC investment, I feared they'd sell off and/or close doors in a question of months. I just hope the VCs don't let their "expertise" go out of control.
I would like to project Google Street View photography based on my GPS location and compass orientation. Then I would go walking on the streets (system powered by huge batteries) and trying to navigate my way around.
Everyone I've shown my Rift to has been delighted by the experience of being inside the game world. The immersion is unquestionably impressive, despite the many flaws. Oculus nailed the important parts of delivering real VR (low-latency, high-FoV) at a cheap price - but I don't think their success is assured yet.
Things like resolution will certainly help, though most people quickly looked past the chunky screen-door effect, and I'm sure it'll get smaller, lighter and cheaper too. What concerns me is that all but one of the dozen-plus people I showed it to experienced some degree of simulator sickness within 15 minutes, including myself. Most of those had no prior problems with fast FPS games, and it appears to me to be tied largely to the greater immersion. This usually reduced a lot after a handful of sessions, but I feel that this may be a real barrier to adoption - professionals can work through that, but I think a lot of gamers and casual users will have one go, quickly feel sick, and be put off.
More appropriate game design will surely help, and by minimising lateral & spinning movements and sharp accelerations, I think people can be eased into it. But this is outside Oculus' control, many games will do it poorly at first, and I'm expecting a pretty severe backlash when it hits the market, given the current hype. I just hope VR will survive it.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I think they should be doing at least dual vertical 1080P displays (one for each eye). I don't care if it costs a bit more, or if it needs a better video card. The most important thing is that it is as immersive as possible.
after 1080p, the best increment in screen output would be a 120hz refresh rate.
Get rid of your Nintendo VirtualBoy then. Things have come a long way since then.
Only $16 million? I'm surprised the people at Oculus haven't raised ten times that amount, given that this is going to be the next big wave in gaming. It certainly wasn't going to be that Wii U tablet thing.
I remember Quake on the VFX1. Novel, but not practical for everyday gaming. How's this any different?
I'm guessing you don't have your screen 3" from your face, with magnifying lenses.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
This one is less fun, but realistic from a point of view of FPS gamer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxCWwa7u7uM
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
actually you would like 4k resolution for the device.
why? because it's half per eye.... I could drop down some effects for increased resolution. and it would make watching movies really fine.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
a high-end PC can handle 4k res, this is why we have SLI.
Consoles on the other hand ... meh, who cares for them.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
The problem is what the eyes sees and what the body feels. I suspect the best games for Rift right now is where you sit down in the game, racing and flying simulations.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
I don't own a Rift, and I likely won't.
But:
What I remember from the Quake 1 days was this: The rendering was fisheyed. If I looked at a pillar, and then turned a few degrees to the right, the pillar got -bigger-: It consumed more pixels at the side of the screen, than it did in the middle of the screen.
This really bothered me at the time. I complained about it, and folks said "Well how ELSE would it be shown?"
And I'm all like "I don't care. That's not how I see things. And I hate it."
And then they're all "Whatever, fag."
Meanwhile, I'm sitting here, looking at a pillar in real life, and I turn my head (or my gaze) to the side, and it doesn't get bigger. It just moves over a bit in my field of vision, and doesn't look at at like looking through a magnified peephole in a door.
In retrospect, it is clear that this rendering method was done so that CPUs of the day could keep up at a reasonable framerate, as the periphery would require fewer polygons and thus render faster.
It also seems clear to me that something like Rift, which is intended to encompass the entire field of view, the system would need to be particularly careful about how it handled such things.
But then, output devices don't control fisheye. Game programmers do. Perhaps it can improve simply through better software design.
Kid-proof tablet..
This couldn't come soon enough. Can't wait to play Amnesia on this, and when I say play, I mean up to the first dark corridor just before piss my pants and turn off the game.
Most of Street View pictures come from a height of 2.5 metres above driving lanes, so you might need to include a penny-farthing on your equipment list.
OK, as a HEAVY Quake 1 and Quake 2 player and modder back in the day, I can say that with those engines at least, what you are describing is what you get when the FOV value is set too high. By default in id games, it's 90. A LOT of serious gamers up that to 120 or higher (so they can see more). As a result the fish-eye effect is enhanced and objects are stretched at the edge of the screen, and compressed in the centre.
In almost ALL games, FOV is user definable. A little bit of research at the time would have solved your issue completely.
-Jar
Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
Tell that to anyone who suffers from motion sickness.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I tried Sony's headset last year and almost forked over $800 for it. Same resolution as the current OR headsets.
Not same. The HMZ has two 720p displays. The current OR DK has one divided in half. Even their newest 1080p prototype, which is a 1080p display divided in half, has a smaller resolution than the HMZ if you count out the unused border pixels. Saying that the new OR is a Full HD device is like saying the 3DS resolution is 240x800.
Anyway the HMZ and OR are two very different products. They both fall under the head mount display category, but the OR is optimized for VR while the HMZ is optimized for movies/TV and "standard" non-immersive gaming.
. But what do we have on the consumer market that can drive 4k displays? Nothin'.
Eyeinfinity capable cards have been able to drive resolutions way beyond 4k using multiple monitors during real time gaming. VR headsets are very niche. People that buy these toys have a beast of a PC already. 4k is nothing. What we need are the actual displays. As for the Mac Pro part of your comment, the Mac Pro is advertising better/faster 4k video and image editing. 4k video output has been available for ages. On top of that the new Mac Pro is still a horrible gaming machine, as it uses workstation/server class components.
I'm following reddit oculus rift and looks like the games I'm describing are much better regrading motion sickness. FPS are a different story.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Since motion sickness pre-exists VR there are also pre-existing solutions. If it's cool enough I predict a sharp spike in the sale of motion sickness pills, shortly to be followed with a surge in our understanding of the health effects of prolonged acute usage.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And the funny thing is, EAX technology is a perfect fit for the Rift.
Is he still saying that? Originally Carmack wanted to take over the Oculus if it proves to be a success and was shown middle finger - relations got a lot colder since then...
I have to say, TF2 is one of only a very FEW games I continuously come back to and play, over and over again. I never really get bored with it. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I get the idea an awful lot of people abandoned that game simply because they got their attention re-focused on the latest and greatest, shiny new releases.
But IMO, Team Fortress 2 checks all the boxes for a truly fun gaming experience. The 3D shooter category only has so many basic concepts for multiplayer play, anyway. You have your "Capture the Flag" mode, your "Deathmatch", your "Domination", and so on. The only thing that really changes when you pay your $50 for the latest one are the background scenery, design of the levels and the characters. You get some unique weapons too, once in a while, but even those are usually re-hashes of the same ideas 90% of the time.
To me, TF2 ensures plenty of people to play against at any time, because they gave the game away free and it runs well not only on multiple platforms, but has reasonable hardware requirements so even older machines can run it. The bandwidth usage isn't too bad either, so your people stuck on say, a 3mbit DSL connection, can still play it without issues.
I'd rather see more development on top of something great like TF2 than wasted "reinventing the wheel" on yet another FPS title that will just get played for a little while and scrapped.....
(The best thing Valve could do for TF2 though, IMO, is to release some more official levels for it. I've played a few really good custom made ones, but also a lot of buggy, not so well thought out ones that even crashed the game at times. It definitely doesn't have NEAR the enthusiastic level building community that we had for older classics like Quake. It could use an official "level pack" or two from Valve, even if they cost a few bucks to download.)
*You* might find it unacceptable, but most people I showed it to (non-gamers all of them) find it a really nice experience. Yes, they notice the low resolution and some of them even mention the screen door effect. Most of them even get nauseous. And still, what they *really* want is something to do! Ok, nice demos, but *now what*?
You seem to forget they made really nice and hugely popular games when all they had was 4-color 640x480 monitors.
Of course I want higher resolution VR without screen door, but only because it will allow us to do so much more with it.
The *only* real obstacle I see is what was mentioned before: the motion sickness. If we can't get that down to more acceptable levels I wonder how many people will feel like going through the "training" to get accostumed to it...
A 4.7" 720p phone at 12" viewing distance has an angular pixel size of about 0.91 arc-minutes, a 24" 1080p screen at 24" distance is about 1.56 arc-minutes (bigger apparent pixels), and pixels on a 5" 1080p screen on an Oculus Rift at 3" distance have an angular size of about 2.60 arc-minutes. Then there's magnification from the optics on top of that.
So no, even a 1080p Oculus Rift will have pixels that look around twice the size as the pixels on your monitor, and three times the size of the best phones. But it'll still be a huge improvement over the current 7" 720p Dev Kit, which is 5.46 arc-minutes.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Meh. I have a low tolerance for being insulted for noticing things that other people either ignore or also do not understand.
Thanks, though. I'll keep this in mind the next time I'm annoyed by it in an FPS.
Kid-proof tablet..
Depends on your viewing distance. 50" is twice 24", so the pixels will be twice as large - but if you're viewing from twice as far away, they'll look the same - they'll be the same angular size of 1.5 arc-minutes. If you're viewing from further than 4', they'll look smaller. At over 6' distance, your 50" Full HD screen's pixels will be 1 arc-minute or less, which is what some people call "retina" quality.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
( http://www.sport3trade.net/ ) This is a shopping paradise We need your support and trust, you can find many cheap and high stuff,Believe you will love it, WE ACCEPT CREDIT CARD /WESTERN UNION PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!