Slashdot Mirror


Oculus Rift: 2015 Launch Unlikely, But Not Impossible

An anonymous reader writes: Earlier this week during Facebook's 2015 Q1 earnings call, the company seemed to suggest that a 2015 Oculus Rift release date was unlikely. At least, that's what a report about the call from Gamasutra indicated, saying, "It doesn't sound like Oculus will ship the consumer version of its Oculus Rift VR headset this year, or at least not in very large quantities." However, an equity analyst has chimed in to say that the language used during the call shouldn't be interpreted colloquially, concluding that "...there is no information here that rules out Oculus shipping in 2015."

74 comments

  1. Okay by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, why does my "bullshit detector" go off. Not on the article, but I thought I'd pop onto Wikipedia and find out when Oculus Rift was first started as a project.

    There's no mention. They mention the huge buyout in 2014, but no mention of the start of it, even under the "History" section.

    And only one of the citations is from before that - an article in 2012. Now, it's not a deep secret, I can google and find stuff from that kind of era discussing it, but why OMIT this information in the History section of your own product's page?

    Maybe it's because, 3 years on from the kickstarter, and millions and millions of dollars later, there's still no commercial product?

    1. Re:Okay by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I thought I'd pop onto Wikipedia

      Wikipedia, got it.

      why OMIT this information in the History section of your own product's page

      Well, it's not 'their' page. Doesn't wikipedia even discourage companies from editing pages about themselves or their products?

      Which brings us to...

      Now, it's not a deep secret, I can google and find stuff from that kind of era discussing it

      ...and you haven't edited the article to add the information you sought because...why?

      That aside - yeah, by now there's quite a few competing products already on the market with various levels of success...and without the facebook involvement.

    2. Re: Okay by casings · · Score: 1

      They have the rightman to implement it. Carmack is known for delivering quality technologies and taking the time to release them when they are finished.

    3. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Rift makes people sick. It will not sell like that, so it would make no sense to release it in that state.

      Of course, that should have been fixed by now. Apparently, it is a hard thing to fix. If I was a Rift backer, I would want my money back.

      Just wait for the Vive from Valve. It will be awesome, won't make you sick, and out for Christmas.

      Teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MzN3Vs4N8

    4. Re: Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      | Just wait for the Vive from Valve
      But they'll charge you for mods

    5. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GearVR is a commercial product.

    6. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that, wait for HoloLens, which is far more useful than these cell-phone-strapped-to-the-face things.

    7. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's take a look at the name "GearVR". Now let's take a look at the name "Oculus Rift".

      Notice how the two are not the same? That is because they are names for completely different products.

    8. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vive is nothing like a cell-phone-strapped-to-the-face. You don't know your facts.

      Hololens might be useful to people working in specific industries, but it is mostly just a toy. The holograms are transparent, which breaks the immersion. For gaming, VR will be more immersive, and more fun, than AR, in my opinion.

      But....I will at least try the hololens out at a store when it comes out. If the quality is there, and games I want to play using it are there, then I will buy one.

    9. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Completely different products" which use the same exact core technology.

    10. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that why Rift DK2 costs $350 while a working Gear VR setup costs $250 + $600? Or why the required Note 4 phablet for the Gear VR has a bigger, higher resolution screen? Or why the Note 4 has a 2.7GHz quad-core CPU and GPU while the Rift only has a 32MHz microcontroller? Where is this "same exact core technology" that you dreamed up?

      Spec-wise, they are about as far about as any two electronic devices can be

    11. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The holograms are transparent

      Uhh, wrong. They are as opaque as the user wants them to be. You've obviously never seen them.

      For gaming, VR will be more immersive, and more fun, than AR, in my opinion.

      Clip a $0.05 piece of vision blocking plastic to HoloLens and boom, instant VR. Being an AR unit it is much more flexible and can be used for far more things than a VR-only headset.

    12. Re:Okay by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      ...and you haven't edited the article to add the information you sought because...why?

      Probably the same reason most of us don't bother, because some yahoo has the article set to page them the second that someone edits it. They then jump up and down and revert it while throwing a hissy fit in the talk section.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Okay by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I've always thought that was a rather simple cop-out.

      1. Use wikipedia as a source for information.
      2. Find it lacking.
      3. Refuse to address that because reasons.
      4. Go to 1.

      That doesn't make sense, does it?

    14. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real story is quite simple. John Carmack was using some LCDs ripped from Samsung Galaxy phones as hacky display devices for Oculus Rift prototypes. Rift was getting delayed more and more, and Carmack talking with Samsung engineers, they just took the "easy way out" and decided to directly use the idea to make snap-on goggles for a phone.

    15. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMNHO it REALLY NEEDS a MUCH HIGHER resolution screen ALSO at MUCH HIGHER pixel DENSITY -> such a screen is NOT available, or at least at reasonable prices yet.

      My DK2 some hours or maybe a day after receiving it, probably a day as the initial wow factor had worn down I started noticing that I could see every damned pixel and every time that I used it now, I cannot but help notice that which HUGELY DETRACTS from the experience, especially if used for something like viewing video.

    16. Re:Okay by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Let me fix that for you:

      1. Use wikipedia as a source for information.
      2. Find it lacking.
      3. Fix and source information with verifiable information from more than one party.
      4. Watch revert happen in under 1 hour.
      5. Watch talk page explode when hissy fit is thrown
      6. Refute revert with more facts
      7. Get temp banned by editors for 'reasons'
      8. Give up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Okay by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that for you by adding:
      9. Don't go to 1 again. Ever.

      Alternatively:
      4-8. Don't happen, you just contributed, and anybody who went with step 1 in the first place is thankful for it.

    18. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words the Gear VR and Oculus Rift are completely different products.

    19. Re:Okay by j35ter · · Score: 1

      Except that you still have a fucking PC strapped to your face!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    20. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah....nah.

      Its a display and positioning electronics thats strapped to your face. The PC is sitting where it usually does.

      Really not sure what point you are trying to bring to the conversation.

    21. Re:Okay by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      4-8 happen quite a bit. Especially on articles relating to non-scientific subjects.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    22. Re:Okay by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing that - I haven't had it happen, but I've read the stories.

      I just feel that it's strange for some people to say they won't contribute to wikipedia - because they fear somebody else with an agenda will just revert their edits.. on any subject.. all the time.. with nobody backing them up despite facts - and at the same time complain about lack of certain information on wikipedia. At the point where they won't contribute, themselves, they should have written off wikipedia as a source of information entirely; unless they think they're special and everybody else's contributions are free of such tyranny.

    23. Re:Okay by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Having watched the edit wars, editor sanctions, and all the rest over the last year on a variety of subjects. I can say that there are cliques of editors that have an agenda. They don't care about a NPOV, they want their POV. Even when ABCOM steps in and kicks them out, they'll come back either as someone else or a new account and continue to do what they were before.

      You want a good example from the last year? Take a look at the gamergate article. Not only did ABCOM step in, it banned 5 editors, two of which were carrying a very specific agenda, one of whom came back under a new alias and ABCOM is now looking at revisiting it again because people can't be bothered to keep the article neutral.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    24. Re:Okay by ledow · · Score: 1

      The biggest edits I ever did on Wikipedia, many years ago now, were to the articles about ZX Spectrum games.

      I spent hours loading up games in emulators, capturing screenshots, writing out information, etc. Most of the articles for those games existed already, I just did things like link the developers, publishers, etc. categorised them, added screenshots where they were missing.

      By a year later, every screenshot I'd done had been removed. Not because of copyright - but because when I'd first done them, I'd tagged them as per the required tags for copyright (e.g. fair usage, etc.). I'd spent forever putting all the tags on after being told for one article. The next month, my images were removed because a new tag had been introduced and I hadn't updated the images with it. So I updated the tags. Repeat ad infinitum for nearly a year. Every time, warnings about tags, copyright-tag bots spamming my talk page, new tags popping out of nowhere and serving no new purpose but those same bots stripping any images that did not have them.

      In the end, I gave up. I stopped editing. I stopped categorising. I stopped screenshotting. All my screenshots (despite being perfectly fine for a year while I was tagging them) disappeared within a month. Most of those articles never got even a title screenshot back and are now either plain-text or the entire article is history.

      And every "new" game article I added was removed for being "non-notable", when tiny little indie game articles stayed up for years, and the article were about huge, mainstream, industry-changing games.

      Sorry, but my time and effort was wasted, not by fans of the games, readers of the articles, or even the article curators. Just by random paranoid spamming bots and people who - at first - I presumed were editors and moderators but actually were most likely just random people who wanted to criticize and break the articles for their own stats(?), I don't know.

      All that happened is that the articles turned to dust and rotted over the years while the talk pages filled up with arguments.

    25. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My G3 looks wonderful in my Google Cardboard compatible HMD.

    26. Re:Okay by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I just feel that it's strange for some people to say they won't contribute to wikipedia - because they fear somebody else with an agenda will just revert their edits.. on any subject.. all the time.. with nobody backing them up despite facts - and at the same time complain about lack of certain information on wikipedia. At the point where they won't contribute, themselves, they should have written off wikipedia as a source of information entirely; unless they think they're special and everybody else's contributions are free of such tyranny.

      it's not fear of reversions - reversions happen all the time. It's rather the waste of time putting real effort in, tagging, citing and doing everything properly, then boom, revert.

      Doesn't matter if you spent a whole week perfecting the article and made it a stunning example of what could be done, it just takes power-mad editor 2 seconds to say "I hate it, revert" and that's that.

      Edit wars are a sign that people still care to take the time to invest in editing. But after you spent an hour fixing a problem, only to see it reverted the next day, you start feeling your time could be better spent elsewhere.

      People won't bother to contribute if they feel their contributions won't be taken seriously. Fixing a simple date in an article that takes 2 minutes is one thing, but fixing up an article to the point where it's fully in compliance takes hours or days, all of which can be lost in seconds.

      That's the environment Wikipedia has become.

    27. Re:Okay by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I think we're getting way out of context here. OP's issue was indeed just a 2 minute thing, and any potential power-mad editor reverting entirely hypothetical. Even if the OP feels that hypothesis to be sound, then OP shouldn't refer to wikipedia in the first place - or at least not complain about not finding certain information there.

  2. aka "A stock pumper" by msobkow · · Score: 2

    Whenever some "analyst" says something like a release "isn't impossible", the only reason I can think of for saying such a think is a "pump and dump" stock scheme. :(

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:aka "A stock pumper" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, wtf are you babbling about? He said the exact opposite. And besides, Facebook has a market cap of $228B. Good luck pumping that by talking about a miniscule side project that has nothing to do with their core business, advertising.

    2. Re:aka "A stock pumper" by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know Facebook bought them out. Which leaves me wondering *why* someone would try to "pump" the stock.

      I mean, seriously, what's the point of crying out "it could still happen!" when everyone is saying it's unlikely at best?

      *shrug* Maybe the analyst is a hard-core gamer with a bad case of wishful thinking.

      Kind of like the "Duke Nuke'em Forever" fans were. :P

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:aka "A stock pumper" by Kjella · · Score: 1

      An analyst is generally not a person eating his own dog food, it's a person trying to sell his insight of the market to third parties as investment advice. What it means in practice is that you're trying to make a lot of statements that make you seem smart in hindsight but don't compromise your credibility when they don't pan out. Like in this case, if the Oculus Rift doesn't launch in 2015 this won't even be a footnote. If it does launch, he can point to this statement and say "Look, I wasn't sure but I had a hunch this would happen". You don't need to make any elaborate theories of stock manipulation, this is simply one analyst trying to pump up his own career.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. Mission Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abort, abort!

  4. Vapourware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure you can buy an expensive dev version but the consumer version is approaching Duke Nukem Forever territory.

    1. Re:Vapourware by kuzb · · Score: 0

      $350 for a working dev kit is expensive? You and I must live in vastly different worlds.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:Vapourware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of which, developers are going to move on if Rift takes another full year. It's been too long to keep active employees on it.

    3. Re: Vapourware by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing the next rev will have a 4k display. I believe the competition is also looking into that as well. Given the extra R&D on an entirely new concept with equally impressive tech; I give the launch date late 2016 or early 2017 for a consumer product.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Vapourware by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      at less than 1/100 the cost of previous VR versions I wouldn't really call it expensive.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Vapourware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can only buy one in the US with a US based credit card. Cos I guess the terrorists win if they get their hands on an Oculus Rift.

      Nope. One can buy it across the world. Bought one here last summer.

    6. Re: Vapourware by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the next rev will have a 4k display. I believe the competition is also looking into that as well. Given the extra R&D on an entirely new concept with equally impressive tech; I give the launch date late 2016 or early 2017 for a consumer product.

      And the question is - is it too late? I mean, we've been hearing about OR for years now, and all the wonderful things it can do. Consumers are ripe for *ANYTHING* to come onto the market.

      An enterprising Chinese manufacturer can release POS versions of OR with crappy screens and laggy tech and make it for $150. If they release it by the holidays, that will be the big Christmas gift of the year.

      And by CES 2016, everyone would wonder what the hype was about, and damage the concept so badly, even an Apple version wouldn't get the market going again.

      The technology is being hyped up way beyond reasonable. The first out of the gate could really go and spoil it for everyone.

      Yes, a high-res display is nice, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it wasn't there. You want the low latency and fast response and that is already there. Someone releasing a crappy version would bring about the same thing that happened every time it's tried - it flops, and the technology gets shelved for another decade.

    7. Re:Vapourware by j35ter · · Score: 1

      Not true, bought one in Europe!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    8. Re: Vapourware by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If someone was smart, they would release a final product this year with the option to replace the LCD for a 4k version as a drop-in upgrade. It would be a way of capturing early market share now while still being a viable product once the competition follows behind with their offering.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  5. Meh... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

    The release of Oculus Rift always seems to be juuuuuust around the corner. Is this thing turning into the hardware equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever?

    1. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a new release every year and a half is duke nuke'm time? Is someone impatient? I would much rather have something that worked well, has hand movement integration, and one that doesn't make me sick when I use it.

    2. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a new release every year and a half is duke nuke'm time? Is someone impatient? I would much rather have something that worked well, has hand movement integration, and one that doesn't make me sick when I use it.

      They've been releasing consumer versions Oculus Rift on a yearly basis? ... that's good news! So where can I buy an Oculus Rift? This thing is looking more and more like vapourware with every passing day.

    3. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what everyone said about Duke Nukem Forever before it was released. Every year the release was pushed back, "but that's not too long. As long as they get it right I don't care." More than a decade later, "this game is crap what took so long?" Oculus is showing the same signs as DNF. Super hype? Check. Well funded? Check. Constant delays to make sure your product has "the next big thing in tech?" Check.

      I love the idea of the Oculus Rift. I almost bought a dev kit, but I was able to resist and now I'll wait for the consumer version or the Valve Vive. I'm 50/50 on whether this thing actually gets released or just subsumed by other parts of Facebook/sold off to other companies. There isn't a huge market for VR goggles (simple physiology cuts out a lot of people). Oculus needs a device that is good enough not perfect. With the Vive coming out this year I can't see Valve dropping the ball so bad that those who buy the Vive will fork out another $300 for the Oculus Rift when it arrives. Some will; most won't. That further reduces the available market for the device.

      Right now it looks like Valve will push VR ahead while Oculus is going to crash and burn.

    4. Re:Meh... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Not really, they've had 3 releases so far and another next month. DK1, DK2, GearVR and the new S6 GearVR coming soon. For a company that hasn't had a release they sure seem to be releasing a lot of stuff.

      The DK2 is as good of a product as any early adopter type thing. If you are even mildly interested in VR it is worth it. I picked mine up a couple months ago and have used it every day since. sometimes for 6+ hours at a time.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Meh... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I was watching an old computer chronicles from 1994 CES special where they featured a vr helmet (smaller than the rift too) and mentioned 2 others, so you see how far VR has come, its gotten larger, more expensive, and still hasn't left CES in 21 years in any meaningful way

    6. Re:Meh... by Tumalu · · Score: 1

      As someone who had the chance to try VR in the 90s, and who has used Oculus's DK2, I can say that the difference is staggering.

      Most of the VR headsets that I remember from the 90s where significantly bigger than anything Oculus has put out, however I don't doubt that with a quick search one could find examples of smaller headsets from the 90s. But what all this glosses over is the difference in what the user experiences when wearing the headset. Part of this is simply due to improved rendering capabilities on the PC side, but I suspect that lightweight high resolution screens with very high refresh rates, and small but accurate motion sensors plays a big part as well.

      With the hardware that I remember from the 90s, the user always felt the need to turn their head with very slow unnatural motions in order for the sensors/rendering to keep in sync. Contrast this with Oculus's devkits/prototypes where the head tracking is natural and fast enough that some people can forget that they're even wearing a headset at some level.

      I do think that the resolution is still lacking (thought it's far better than anything I tried in the 90s), and the size/weight may need to some down a bit further. But overall I'm optimistic that VR can be successful this time around. I know that there were people who were optimistic in the 90s as well, but I wasn't one of them. It just didn't seem like the technology was ready yet. Perhaps it's still not ready, but in my opinion it's much much closer.

    7. Re:Meh... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      well no duh its gotten better, everything has gotten better and as far as size

      http://img.gawkerassets.com/im... 1994
      http://img.gawkerassets.com/im... 1995 *personally owned these
      http://img.gawkerassets.com/im... 1996

      seems smaller than
      http://blogs-images.forbes.com... 2015

  6. Have I answered your questions and provided good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    customer service?

    VR Headsets were a thing 20 years ago, and they also died for a very good reason as well. Nobody wants to wear heavy goggles on their head and play games like that.

    I'd rather know about things like Doom 4 or Brutal Doom v20.

  7. Facebook VR's machine learning tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truly "smart" programs often aren't really yet suited for VR; the defining line I draw is how well they handle pathological cases. For example, have your dictation software transcribe the following sentence: "The village yeoman, Hugh, hewed two yews to use in the upcoming archery contest". I'm not guaranteeing it will choke, but it sure won't be pleased with you, despite the grammatical perfection of the sentence. However, any human with his Facebook VR headset that will immediately make sense of it, seeing Zuckerberg's vision for the 3rd world. Unsurprisingly, it is the simple distribtued social algorithms (Bayesian statistics for spam filtering) that seem to best manage the complexity of real life while still failing gracefully.

  8. VR Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Facebook built quite well with just human labor rather than using domestic animals. As for ruby - where do you think corn comes from, just for starters? And Mark Zuckerberg? There were a number of other crop plants in the Americas that weren't available in the "old world" - including ruby on rails, that was nearly made extinct by code.org (in their reaction to a rather bloody ritual that was associated with its cultivation).

    Despite the convenient old world conceit that they "civilized" the new world (rather than wiping out the current civilizations there by introducing disease and then conquering or subverting the cultures most of the survivors, destroying their records and traditions) there have been several rather extensive Facebook experiments. These include one that was destroyed by a climate change well before the Google invasion, and an empire that formed the ACTUAL foundation of the resurgence of Social Media. One more would be no surprise.

    1. Re:VR Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope someone slits your throat while you sleep so we don't have to endure any more of your senseless babbling.

    2. Re:VR Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that, actually - I was worried for a minute, it was just me who had no idea WTF Parent was raving on about.

    3. Re:VR Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to wonder, to what extend would these people be angry about whatever poster wrote anyway? I tend to get impatient/grumpy/angry in many situations, regardless of whether it's online or offline (in lines at the bank, stores, etc.). I go kick my shoe, knock a trash bin over, hollar. Yeah, it's a bit easier to vent online sometimes, in IM thread, some forums or Slashdot, and so on, but I've vented in public and with friends/colleagues offline for years, well before the world of 'online'.

    4. Re:VR Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember some time ago random racism and profanity filled posts that seemed to pick random words out of the article.

      I kinda wonder if someone is training a bot here somehow off of articles and random junk from the internet.

      If so, good job bot overlord, the newest iteration is much more pleasant.

    5. Re:VR Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +0 ... uh, spambot

    6. Re:VR Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No bots used

  9. 4K display by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure hope so. The DK2 version works really great except that the resolution is way too low for it to be fun to wear. At 4K maybe they will finally break into the territory where it feels like you entered a real virtual reality. :)

    1. Re:4K display by smaddox · · Score: 1

      It will always look artificial until they move to a true variable-focus retinal display. Note that there are other companies (e.g. Magic Leap) that are working on retinal displays.

    2. Re:4K display by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      They're hush on details as to what that "magic" is, but this seems to be for augmented applications such as the Google Glass. So my question is, is the 3D object variable-focused as a whole on the Z-plane to match the focal distance in the real world? Meaning, are all objects augmented independently variable, or is the variable-focus fixed for the entire view at any single point at a time?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  10. FB hasn't figured out how to bork it by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    FB is a software company. Actually, that's being generous. They're a post-dot-com dot-com company.

  11. The technology needs 1-2 more generations... by Chas · · Score: 1

    Seriously.

    Gen1 and Gen2 Rifts are nice rich-boy gadgets. But of EXTREMELY limited utility, as the side-effects of working with them are still as bad as they are.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  12. same flop, different decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one will wear a helmet to play games.

    1. Re:same flop, different decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played!

  13. Not Impossible is the same as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possible using six additional characters

  14. so no star citizen this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    so no star citizen this year

    poor chris roberts

  15. watch your six by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The phrase in TFS was "there is no information here that rules out ...", which is functionally pretty much the same as "not impossible". See the double negatives?

    I guess there's nothing there that rules out being buggered by a unicorn either.

    Weasel words and bet hedging.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a product never ships it never fails.

  17. Oculus Rift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oculus Rift: The Daikatana of Hardware