Slashdot Mirror
Valve's SteamVR: Solves Big Problems, Raises Bigger Questions
An anonymous reader writes: When Valve debuted its SteamVR headset recently, it came as somewhat of a surprise — it certainly hasn't gotten the same level of hype as the Oculus Rift. But people who got to try out the new headset almost universally impressed with the quality of the hardware and software. Eurogamer has an article about the device expressing both astonishment at how far the technology has come in three short years, as well as skepticism that we'll find anything revolutionary to do with it. Quoting: "R demands a paradigm shift in the thinking of game designers and artists about how they build virtual space and how players should interact with it. We're only at the very beginning of this journey now. ... but this process will likely take years, and at the end of it the games won't resemble those we're currently used to. In short, they won't be Half-Life 3."
The author thinks simulation games — driving, piloting, and space combat — will be the core of the first wave, and other genres will probably have to wait for the lessons learned making sims good. He adds, "...the practical challenges are great, too — not least in persuading players to clear enough space in their homes to use this device properly, and the potential for social stigma to attach to the goofy-looking headsets and the players' withdrawal into entirely private experiences. I still think that these present major obstacles to the widespread adoption of VR, which even more practical and commercially realistic offerings like Morpheus will struggle against."
The author thinks simulation games — driving, piloting, and space combat — will be the core of the first wave, and other genres will probably have to wait for the lessons learned making sims good. He adds, "...the practical challenges are great, too — not least in persuading players to clear enough space in their homes to use this device properly, and the potential for social stigma to attach to the goofy-looking headsets and the players' withdrawal into entirely private experiences. I still think that these present major obstacles to the widespread adoption of VR, which even more practical and commercially realistic offerings like Morpheus will struggle against."
Quoting: "R demands a paradigm shift in the thinking
Yup, I bet it does if you're used to something like Python or Matlab for your data munging.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I think people are too focused on the VR headset and not considering the problem of peripherals enough. When you put on a VR headset, you essentially demand a HOTAS type control system, so your hands never have to wander around searching for where to go, as you're not essentially blind to the world.
I've been thinking a lot about what sort of controller would be optimal for a shooter or other first-person game in which you wanted to be able to look, aim, and move independently. You'd essentially need a movement control for your off hand, and an aiming device for your main hand. It could be a concept similar to the Wii remote with it's attached single-hand joystick - only I'd prefer an aiming device with a proper pistol grip and trigger, and they'd both need to be independent and wireless so you're not getting cables caught on anything. A standard two handed gamepad is just not going to cut it, I think. If this can be cracked, then we'll certainly *may* see shooters and first-person adventure games. If it ends up feeling clumsy, then probably not. It's really hard to say until someone tries it out.
Hell, even if the technology is really only broadly used for flight sims and other "in the cockpit" sort of games, it's still a win. I used to play quite a few flight sims ages ago, and the limited field of view was incredibly frustrating. The prospect of being able to look over my shoulder to track potential targets sounds incredible. Granted, not everyone is going to have a HOTAS system, but for those of us who do, it's going to be awesome.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Have you changed hemispheres semi-recently?
I had the same issue when I relocated from Australia to the UK, I had gone from have a good sense of direction to always being about 180 deg out. It wasn't till my old man said it is because the sun is on the wrong side that it clicked. In the southern hemisphere the sun is always to the North, in the Northern it is to the south. Sub-consciously I must have been drawing on that.
Unless you've actually tried at least the Oculus rift DK2, your opinion means utterly nothing.
I shouldn't get into the details of my project, but I've been thinking this over. We're going to need lots of testing for a paradigm shift in interfaces.
Okay, so your basic game camera modes are top-down, isometric, third person, and first person. Simulations build on that with chase cams, orbital cams, fixed cams, and mobile cams that rotate around the subject. In VR, each one of these will have consequences, and those consequences need to be known.
Let's start with the obvious. First person will work, right off, no changes. It's the most suited to VR. Third person will work, but where we feel like we're watching our characters when we're in third person mode on a screen, in VR we it will feel more like an out of body experience. That is, if we continue to identify with the character, otherwise we'll feel like some kind of disembodied entity following a protagonist. We have to keep the player from feeling compelled to look "around" things, so keeping from obstructing the player's view will take on a new importance. If a tree gets in the way of the shot, instead of feeling like a tree is in the way, we'll feel like we've run into a tree.
But speaking of disembodied entities, that's exactly what top-down and isometric views will feel like. So, let's hone in on that. Will virtual worlds feel like shoebox dioramas or will we feel like birds, aircraft, or perhaps deific figures peering down upon the world? These analogies can be expressed literally in virtual spaces, so playing with them in interfaces can potentially do amazing things for the experience. Imagine a city-builder game, top-down, in VR, where the occasional cloud or birds below are timed and positioned just right to reinforce that feeling. Now imagine that the borders of the window and map make us feel like we're looking down on a model. Tilt-shift post processing can become very important, very soon!
Now we come to sims. Making these the first wave of VR games is a gimmick. It's like the gratuitous addition of objects protruding from the screen in 3D movies; done just to let us get the full experience. What do you imagine in VR? Feeling like you're flying, roller coasters, feeling like you're going very fast. But look at 3D. Having arrows or monster claws or whatever come out of the screen is neat the first few times, and then it takes more finesse. Simulations will probably be just like that. But there's a much bigger issue to think about here. It becomes apparent with simulations, but applies backward through this post all the way to first person.
Hone in on that rotating cam. Can you see the potential for motion sickness and dizziness? Uh oh. That same potential applies everywhere. The awesome thing about VR is that you can feel like you're there. The tricky thing about VR will be that you feel like you're there. I foresee posts about people throwing up while playing flight sims; not even trying to be funny. So, there's some balance between free movement, the rush of certain kinds of motion, gameplay, and the not-so-nice things our brains will do to us under certain conditions.
And we have absolutely no idea how to quantify or even accurately describe the balances involved in this. VR is going to rock when it fully takes off! I can foresee even an entirely new cinematic experience where we watch movies shot such that we can feel like the director or cameraman as we go. Imagine The Matrix with a character selector and cam changer similar to video games. Yes, please! Right? But VR is also going to involve some pain. We need labs quantifying these boundaries and building limits into engines, and we need that starting two years ago!
What if I told you that Valve's VR has been here all along and it was hiding in plain sight -- inside the Oculus Rift itself? Early on, Valve worked with Oculus to improve their head mounted display. The Oculus Development Kit 1 added Valve technology and became the Crystal Cove prototype. The prototype was re-released as the Oculus Development Kit 2. Oculus continued to receive assistance from Valve, but then in March of 2004, Oculus was purchased by Facebook.
For reasons not published, the cooperation between the two companies ended. Oculus went ahead and developed a Crescent Bay prototype, which was very similar to the best of Valve's prototypes at the time, but with the alternate camera arrangement that was used on Crystal Cove. The Crescent Bay prototype was not sold to the public, perhaps related to issues involved with the split between the two companies.
What you've seen with the Valve/HTC Vive is actually the culmination of Valve's ongoing research which Oculus has benefited from. After the split (and losing Abrash to Oculus), Valve continued to work on the hard problems and developed a new tracking technology based on lasers and inexpensive photodiodes, and controller input. The Valve/HTC Vive prototype is the latest public revelation of their ongoing work. It isn't any wonder that Valve's "new headset" has gotten high praise -- they've been breaking ground for some time, you just never knew.
We can expect both HTC/Valve and Oculus to evolve between now and the release of their first consumer product.
I'm not at all surprised at how advanced Valve's VR offering is. They were actually working on VR long before the Oculus Rift started. For some reason Valve canned the project and let go of all their staff including Jeri Ellsworth. Many of these people were then snapped up by Oculus. Because Valve didn't sell their project to Oculus, Valve would have retained all their previous VR work to use when they restarted the project.
One reason why the Oculus Rift could be shittier than the Valve one is that Valve holds the IP to do something better and is not selling it to facebook.
If I am not mistaken, Valve did the ports for Left4dead, Portal 2 and HL2 to the Rift. Valve is definitely not a newcomer to the VR game.
I hope it is Valves VR that takes off. Valve only cares about gaming and doing it well. If facebook wins you can bet they will augment targeted ads into the VR.
Remember how crappy controls in 3D games were? Then Nintendo came out with Super Mario 64 and everyone went "oh yeah this is how it should work". But what about fighting in 3D? Ocarina of Time and z-targeting pretty much established that. Now I admit that story wise Nintendo doesnt always excell. But I don't think anyone can make controls more intuitive then they can. Hell even Mario Galaxy with its insane physics is easy to pick up and figure out how to move when you are jumping from one floating asteroid to another.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.