Slashdot Mirror
Oculus Rift Launching In Q1 2016
An anonymous reader writes: Oculus has announced that their Rift virtual reality headset will be coming out sometime in the first quarter of 2016. They've also posted a couple images of the final consumer headset design. The device was Kickstarted in August, 2012. Consumer-level release dates have slowly slipped further and further out since then, though they've shipped two different development kits. Ars points out that a 2016 launch date will bring the Oculus Rift to market after the Valve/HTC VR headset, and possibly after Sony's Project Morpheus.
Does it come with a blue pill and a red pill?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Can't see much of the headset - who decided to take a picture of the black headset against a black background with no light?
Oculus is releasing later to coincide with the release of Duke Nukem VR. They also indicated the headset they plan to release after that one, called the "osbourne" is much better and cheaper.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I've really been looking forward to this, but the road to release has been so lengthy that I've stopped caring to an extent. While I still think VR will be revolutionary, I feel that revolution is further away than ever. We're likely going to see compatibility issues between the Rift and the Valve headset, which is going to delay things for years to come. Standardised VR is probably years away.
The Facebook buyout also leaves me concerned that I'll need an account to use the Rift, and I most definitely don't want a Facebook account (I don't even want a Slashdot account). When I do buy a VR headset I think I'd be more inclined to go for the Gaben's rather than Zuk's.
SpaceX just had a successful test of its Pad Abort system. What system does OR have in place?
Yeah, but every iteration is better than the previous one. Maybe in a few more cycles, the tech will actually deliver on the promise and it will stick around.
#vaporgate
There is real demand for VR.
There is no demand for a crappy head mounted 3D screen, and little demand for a 3D TV that works only from one angle with special glasses.
Working immersive VR is a winner though. These latest headsets are getting very close for the first time. If this generation doesn't manage it, the next one will. It's VR headset time.
The holographic tech that M$ is delivering has me excited. Seems like a real world use-case for a VR headset.
It's VR headset time.
...said the exec at the Nintendo meeting where he pitched the Virtual Boy.
There's a typo in that summary. It should read:
Facebook has announced that their Rift virtual reality headset
They're already trying to distance their toxic brand name from it. I say call it the Zynga Facebook Superviewer and just let it kill itself based on brand name alone.
It's not holographic, and it's not VR, it's AR. The latest reviews have been terrible, saying MS reduced the field of view of the AR display to a little box in the middle of your vision. There's still hope they'll fix it based on this feedback, but as-is Hololens is DOA.
Don't confuse fad and niche. I don't think anyone who has used the Rift thinks everyone is going to want one. Rather, the medium has finally reached the point where we can go somewhere with it, albeit slowly. I love the idea, but will pass for a generation or two.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
The current 3D movie "fad" has been around for 7-8 years or so. This is several times the length of the previous fads, so I think 3D is here to stay this time. Especially since 3D is being put on lots of movies that would make tons of cash even without the 3D, rather than only on low budget gimmick films.
If they can get a 360 degree camera into a reasonable form factor (neighborhood of a GoPro,) it would be possible to give people the experience of skydiving, rock climbing, or flying a wingsuit in ways that are significantly more real than just watching a video on youtube. You could actually be there, and look around as if you were the pilot. That would be a game changer both for the audience and for content creators.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't buy tons of media but I do always look to see if I can find movies I like in 3D at a reasonable cost. The problem thus far has been that they are always priced at an absurd premium, like $30 or $40 for a movie that I wouldn't likely buy at $20 anyways.
I'm looking forward to these head mounted displays for a few reasons. It'll enable me to watch and play games which may not be appropriate for younger audiences prior to bed time. It should eliminate any screen glare type issues. I can take my computer use to the recliner and sit more comfortably without having to use a gigantic monitor or move a lot of furniture to get a proper viewing angle.
Despite the name that tried to ride the VR fad, the Virtual Boy was not a VR device as we use the term now, since it didn't do head-tracking.
Circumcision is child abuse.
It already seems like yet another item destined to be quickly relegated to my already-full cupboard o' crap.
hilarious, a reply from somebody who never tried the DK2, that much is clear :)
Quick question, have you seen any non-entertainment application that requires 3D flatscreens? Now have you seen non-entertainment applications that require VR?
I have seen a bunch that requires VR, from PTSD treatment to controlling drones remotely. VR is here to stay, it might be niche for a while but I believe it will eventually make your TV obsolete.
Two (or more) willing partners. Camera-equipped headsets small enough not to get in the way. Enhance the visuals as much or as little as you want. Augment your other senses as desired and technologically feasible.
THAT'S first-person shooting!
I have been reading headlines for "Oculus Rift" on /. etc for years. I never read the articles apart from the first 1 or 2, since I found out that Oculus Rift is an "exciting" VR headset and that pretty much covered it for me. Maybe I am getting old, I don't know - for example I do remember me being excited before the Virtual Boy was released. In any case having seen so many headlines over the years, without actually paying any attention to them I had assumed this was a real product and modestly popular. But it is not out yet and not going to be until 2016? That raised my eyebrow and I clicked on the link to find out this "product" I hear about all these years "exists" only as some dark renders on an even darker background? Wow, that's it then, I MUST be getting old...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
But not much else. AR like the Hololens has broader application.
it will eventually make your TV obsolete.
I wouldn't go that far. Some other means of displaying information may supplant tv screens as we know them, but not something everyone must put on and wear.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
There is real demand for VR.
Don't worry, you'll meet a real/living woman one day.
The premise of oculus, and the reason they've been able to capture industry leading talent like Carmack is that VR has been a fad until now because the technology to develop a viable product did not exist. Oculus is supposed to be changing that. It's like digital music players before the original ipod- without those mini hard drives that apple monopolized, you couldn't store enough songs to get people interested in a digital music player.
I'm totally convinced that at a minimum, long-wearable AR (e.g. "Rainbows End" style contact lenses) are not even slightly faddy, and that it's something that a lot of people would sincerely want and use, if it could be done well. It's not something that anyone ever "forgets about for another 20 years." I don't think that's a very controversial statement (am I wrong?).
Then it's just a matter of lowering the bar from there: what can you make that isn't quite as awesome as science fiction imagination, but is still sufficiently do-able and desirable? How much heavier/bulkier than a contact lens is too heavy/bulky? Somewhere along the scale, you get to a point where you can actually deliver a product in real life, and then the big question is how many customers did you filter out while making some compromise.
And somewhere in all that AR, you get the VR and 3D movie niches' tech "for free."
Of course gaming would be one of the applications. Maybe the problem is that if you focus on gaming while trying to get the tech right, you miss most of the utility so you don't have much in the way of sales and scale. I have to admit that for all my enthusiasm about the tech, I don't think of Oculus as a company that is ever going to sell something that I might buy.
Disclaimer: I own both a DK1 and DK2, am actively developing a VR title, and am building a fully sterescopic FPV rig for my old RC-10 1/10th scale RC car.
While I agree that in the past that has been the case, I think this may actually be the one that really makes the breakthrough. I've spent extensive time using the Rift DK1 and DK2, and while it IS true that they're rough in some spots, they are really damn impressive. It's only fairly recently that things have been being made with a good VR experience in mind, and the titles that actually do that well are absolutely amazing to play. At the moment, however, there are some genres that don't, in general, work very well with the rift. Unfortunately, First Person Shooters strike me as being the roughest game experience. Flight sims, space sims, diving sims, racing sims, etc are absolutely amazing. The best platformer-ish experience I've yet tried has been Windlands which if you've not tried it on a DK2 is damn fun.
In the FPS arena, however, there are some gems. One of the best experiences I've tried has been Borderlands The Pre-Sequel. It wasn't designed with VR in mind, but the shading allows for a nice sense of depth in situations where the resolution isn't super high at the moment. That being said, since it wasn't designed with VR in mind, menu navigation sucks. Likewise, Skyrim with a bunch of add-ons is an absolute blast to play, and the menu issues can kind of be fixed. HL2 is the most integrated, and is quite a bit of fun to play. With FPS-ish games, aside from the menu related problems due to not being designed with VR in mind, the biggest problem is the lack of movement. I'm currently hoping the Virtuix Omni or something similar solve that problem. Running around in Borderlands or Skyrim would be amazing, and luckily when I've spoken to the folks at Virtuix they've stated that two of their favorite things to do are run around in Borderlands, and run around in Skyrim.
So far as 3D movies and the like go, the best I've actually seen there has come from the adult industry. It shouldn't take much searching to find that content. The place I'm thinking of is filming in true stereoscopic 3D, high res, and high FOV both vertically and horizontally. So when a scene is being viewed, you can look around to a limited extent within the scene and it remains fully stereoscopic. The location of the head/cameras is fixed, but as a "first step" into such a thing, it's a very immersive experience (no pun intended).
Over all, and granted I'm kind of invested in this generation already, I'm very hopeful at the moment. Content is being created with these devices in mind, and it's GOOD content. Supporting devices (controllers of various sorts) are on their way to market, and they're actually good. The devices themselves are getting lighter and lighter, their refresh rates and head tracking are getting better and better, and their resolution is increasing to a point where they will make not just a good first true forray into VR but a GREAT first step. The thing that, in my mind, really will now need some work, is having video hardware capable of rendering two scenes at really high refresh rates at high detail. The weakest point of the DK2 is reading text, this can be helped somewhat by rendering at higher resolution and downsampling. It doesn't FIX it, but it does make it better. After the first iteration of VR headsets comes out, the graphics card manufacturers will have new goals to chase for a while, and even if this round of VR itself flounders after a year or so.....that's a big win for everyone else, I think (but I don't think that will happen).
Do not talk about unfinished stuff that is still in planning or development. Developing modern things is complex, and that's fine, but it's hard to keep the excitement alive for 5 years. Same goes for SteamBoxes. Same goes for Peter Molyneux's new game Godus, of which people got incredibly angry because it could not deliver this or that thing that was hyped earlier. The trendy "open development" strategy does not come without problems.
Lets play find the shill...naw, too easy.
The Internet: Determined to redefine "shill" as "anyone who likes anything more than I do"
There is no demand for a crappy head mounted 3D screen
That's because they've been crappy. If it was effectively as immersive as going to the movie theater or IMAX there clearly is a market for giant screen experiences even in 2D.
Also great would be on airplanes. I brought my Oculus on my last intercontinental flight and it was great to just get out of the 'claustrophobia' of being around 300 other people. Put on your VR headset and load up a movie in a "theater" with noise cancelling headphones and you're instantly transported into a more relaxing environment. It's not really "VR" but just head tracking a 3D Screen eliminates motion sickness from turbulence etc.
>It'll enable me to watch and play games which may not be appropriate for younger audiences prior to bed time. It should eliminate any screen glare type issues. I can take my computer use to the recliner and sit more comfortably without having to use a gigantic monitor or move a lot of furniture to get a proper viewing angle.
The Oculus Rift is not what you want, then. It will simulate 3D for you, but as for being a 2D screen you can wear on your head, from my personal experience using the latest Oculus Rift prototype, it is no better than what you could have bought 10 years ago as a 2D HMD. Perhaps worse. What it sounds like you want is basically what the Sony Glasstron or Olympus Eyetrek was. See if you can pick one up. The resolution is kind of shitty, however, because they're old tech. The resolution of an Oculus Rift simulating a 60" screen at 10 feet is also shitty, but you get lots of view of a virtual cinema around that screen instead of black dead space.
Virtual Boy was not a VR device as we use the term now
Or even back then. The Virtual Boy was released in July 1995 . That same year the VFX-1 (a true though limited by the technology of the time) virtual reality headset was released.
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Let's go even further: the "Sword of Damocles" device by Ivan Sutherland and Bob Sproull. 1968.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I have the second gen dev version (latest).
It's a disappointment.
Heavy, bulky, uncomfortable, poor resolution and buggy software/drivers.
I'm sure VR will eventually take off, but honestly, the Oculus doesn't feel much better than the VR headsets I used in the 90s.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
As much as I'd like to see usable VR tech in my lifetime, I think this is just going to end up being "3D Television, part 2"
We've been promised this stuff since the early 90's and it has never materialized in any useable form. Ironicly the only one that got to market was the VRBoy, and that was a great example of Nintendo trying to see where the puck is going, but the technology not being mature enough to do it. They then tried again with the 3DS, and had much better luck, but even then, it's more gimmick than substance.
Oculus Rift, This is a product that is still half baked. Three pieces are necessary to have a VR product that doesn't make people sick and has commercial appeal.
1) It needs to present accurate stereoscopic vision which the headset can not do because our eyes are curved. At best there is going to be some warping around the edges that can be masked over a bit, so you don't end up with any peripheral vision.
2) You need to be able to see your hands (eg wearing gloves, or from something like Kinect) otherwise your brain goes "oh shit I'm falling"
3) You need to be able to move without using a controller. This part is going to be the part that can't be solved without people converting their living rooms into exercise rooms. See how much space is required to use the Wii and Kinect games? Now add a harness and a frame so that you can move without hitting anything.
VR is still a fad.
I'll admit, I think the Oculus will probably get some people interested, mainly the people who drop 10000$ on a high end computer rig already.
But for consumers? No this has to be something that actually integrates the a pair of powerful-enough video cards so that people aren't immediately vomiting and returning the equipment after an hour. It can not be done cheaply like low-end inadequate systems are continued to be pushed on people who don't know any better.
This will just be a stop-gap between what we do now and what we eventually will have (full immersive "deep dive" VR) that actually broadcasts signals to the brain and then allows quadriplegics, and comatose patients to be able to live again.
Vapor? Kickstarter's don't lead to serious hardware? That's your insight?
What part of John Carmack, Atman Binstock, Michael Abrash, two shipped development kits over two years, the Samsung GearVR and a $2B Facebook acquisition don't you understand? This is not vapor and it's not a kid's garage Kickstarter.
Semi-informed douchebaggery is the not the same as an informed opinion. Jackasses.
Does this mean Armadillo Aerospace will start flying again in 2016 or 2017?
Oculus has already released 2 different headsets, so they could have delivered. They are putting in the effort to create an optimized design for user performance, and cost, before they spend millions (hundred millions?) to build a production line, that will produce identical headsets, for years on end.
1. The quality and resolution, even for it's day and age was horrible.
2. The price of the Sony offering, and every other similiar product I've looked at was insanely high.
3. At the time even if the prices had been more reasonably they likely would have still been too pricey for me at the time, my finances are much better these days.
The occulus rift while not having spectacular resolution, when you consider it occupies more of your field of view, is still far better than the older options. The price is far more reasonable. If it's good enough and cheap enough for the general market then we will likely see more consistent improvement in the product, such that we might eventually get to something everyone can love.
I've logged on for the first time in years to post this.
I am a serious FPS gamer, from the way back, and owner of a DK2. If they don't figure out something to solve the motion sickness, it'll fall flat.
I was sicker than a dog using my occulus.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
CodeWeavers plans to support Oculus Rift in CrossOver for Mac and Linux, if you want to purchase CrossOver Mac or Linux use promo code ( WEAVEME ) and save 25% off the retail price!