It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Aeonblades I feel like the Oculus Rift is a product that is dead in the water from day one. I pretty much agree with the OP on this one, it just doesn't give you enough for all that it takes away. It's a stepping stone for technology that isn't fully ready yet, and it's going to be a hard sell for most people with all the drawbacks the system has.
Well, not if you're selling it as a gaming peripheral. It seems perfectly suited to that sort of thing. Immersion within games is a big deal to gamers, so a device that increases immersion, and creates as sense of actually "being there" seems like a good fit. The audience and the device are suited to each other. I don't know that it's a two billion dollar market, but it's definitely a market.
Oh I think it will have a much wider appeal than just gamers once the technology actually gets going. I mean imagine watching a movie like avatar but you're not forced to just look at what they're showing. You could actually turn your head and see the whole world. TV and movies are a huge industry that is somewhat stagnant because of it's limitations and where it can take the viewer. Something like this could offer a whole new experience to the viewer.
Obviously that's not something that will happen soon but it's where it could go one day.
If you want to make a quick cash grab off a small niche of gullible people that are susceptible to the latest fads ( regardless how many times these fads have crashed and burned i.e. VR and 3D ), you make a VR headset or a 3D television.
Until you have a fully immersive holodeck, the mainstream market isn't coming anywhere near it.
Originally posted by Laughing-man Originally posted by Aeonblades Depends on who you are I guess. I don't look for Facebook to be relevant more than a few more years. This seems like a panic mode style purchase to try and tell their customers that aren't leaving that they are trying to do something. They are definitely on the back 9 of the green if you catch my drift. Most companies don't come back for another round.
When I am concerned about money, I tighten my belt.
When I have excess money, I diversify my assets.
That's business. IMO.
You can't spend your way back to relevancy. Many companies and governments have tried to and it never works out. Most of the time you end up dragging everyone else down with you.
I do hope they do something with the technology, but with a company that's so out of touch with it's customers, you have to wonder about these weird purchases. What has caused them to panic so much and make these purchases? Only they know.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIVHave played: You name itIf you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
I don't see it as uphill battle. Consumers will buy a lot of new tech toys even if it doesn't work or they don't need it. Just look at all the Kinects Microsoft sold, and compare that to the number that are actually used today.
The question is, will it be a trendy new tech toy that gets forgotten after a while, or will it be useful enough for people besides small minority.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Fendel84M Well, I think Mark Zuckerburg already explained what he envisions the future of Oculus Rift being. He doesn't see it ending with just games. He's also said this is a long term investment in the future. They aren't planning for a return on investment any time soon. I also don't think anyone is expecting this thing to replace the computer monitor. You also have to remember this is the first iteration of it. How big and clunky was the first cell phone?
That's just it. Those big, clunky cell phones replaced big, clunky house phones, but made them mobile. The Rift doesn't take an existing thing and work as a drop in replacement, and it doesn't take an existing thing and improve it without adding a lot of inconvenience.
Nothing that Zuckerberg has said makes the Rift any more convenient to wear, and it doesn't change the absolute requirement that the only media that can be displayed on it is a fully realized three dimensional environment that can only be shown from a first person perspective with no camera locks. Cut scenes? Only if you want people getting dizzy and falling out of their chairs. Third person perspective? Nope. The difference between what people are seeing and what their bodies are actually doing is going to make them sick.
This device has to go mainstream to justify a two billion dollar investment. That means not just gamers, and not just specific games that have been specifically designed for the Rift. There is no path from where they are to where they need to be that doesn't involve going straight through everything the Rift doesn't do and how much it doesn't have a convenient slot in modern life.
first off, I have a Rift and wearing it is fine.
second off, a lot of people seem to be concerned with how it looks and acting as if they are going to a party with the thing on. Typically you use this device in a room by yourself sitting in chair in front of a computer.
Wearing it is fine if you are home by yourself, sitting in a chair, in front of a computer. How do you go from that to a two billion dollar social media device? Nobody doubts that it's an awesome gaming device. Well, maybe some people do, but unlike movies or television, video games can be reverse engineered to accommodate new 3D tech.
How many people get on Facebook without watching television, or talking on the phone? How many people post to Facebook on the computers versus their cell phones or tablets? Who is going to use something like Twitter with a VR headset? Why would they even do that?
This headset works great in a fully realized, three dimensional environment, as long as the user is working with a first person view. That limits what this is going to be useful for. If I have a video I want to share, can someone with a VR headset watch it? Yes, so long as they are in a fully realized, three dimensional environment that has a virtual movie screen in the virtual world that is playing my movie. It would be so much easier for someone to click on my Youtube link. If I have a pithy quote I want people to hear, where is it going to display inside their VR headset? Wouldn't it be easier for them to wear a Google Glass to see that stuff?
Just to be clear, again, I'm not saying the Rift is a horrible device. It's an awesome device. It's an awesome gaming device. I just don't see how this device, even with a two billion dollar investment, is going to become anything other than a niche (however awesome it is) gaming device.
I am pretty sure Facebook saw this purely as an economic investment opportunity. I doubt they have any plans whatsoever to bring it anywhere close to facebook itself becuase it would not make any sense.
From the big Z himself, quoted by Business Insider.
But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a courtside seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face — just by putting on goggles in your home.
This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life. Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures.
This isn't an investment in a gaming peripheral. It sounds like what he wants is to remove all the mobility of cell phones and replace it with virtual mobility using VR headsets. I would agree with your last statement. This doesn't make sense.
ok here it is.
1. it appears he said 'after games' which in of it self is not only huge, its also the only part most of us here at MMORPG care about. VR could be HUGELY successful if it did a full stop just at games.
2. I didnt know he had plans to use VR as basically a virtual phone but think about the last time you really needed to be on a phone with another person in the room at the same time? Most of the time you could be sitting in a chair, by yourself, in front of a computer in a virtual meeting so I fail to see the problem with the device itself in that respect.
3. regarding a company integrating purchased companies with their existing products, its clearly not a requirement. Many people dont know that Sonys largest business is actually Life Insurance
added: also I dont think virtual telecommunity requires it to be mobile. That said I wouldnt be surprised if he is looking at competeing with future versions of google glass. However, mobile VR/AR is not a requirement for a successful VR gaming headset
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Fendel84M Well, I think Mark Zuckerburg already explained what he envisions the future of Oculus Rift being. He doesn't see it ending with just games. He's also said this is a long term investment in the future. They aren't planning for a return on investment any time soon. I also don't think anyone is expecting this thing to replace the computer monitor. You also have to remember this is the first iteration of it. How big and clunky was the first cell phone?
I never said there were issues with a gaming VR headset. That's a wonderful idea.
The Oculus VR doesn't replace any existing thing. The Oculus VR doesn't improve any exist thing either. For anything outside of gaming in VR, it's a solution in search of a problem.
Wearing a Rift and want to use the bathroom? Take it off and put it back on. Unplugging it isn't an option, and if it's wireless taking it off is still the only option. Put it back on and you have to readjust your eyeballs to it. Someone calls you? Same routine. Want to eat? Not while you're wearing it. To a gamer, these are largely non-issues. It's well worth the effort. To every other person on the planet who isn't specifically playing video games, these are complications. It's easy just to watch television, movies or use social media on a phone or tablet.
This wouldn't matter, except they dropped two billion dollars on it. They have to take it someplace beyond gaming. They aren't going to sell two billion dollars worth of these things.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Fendel84M Well, I think Mark Zuckerburg already explained what he envisions the future of Oculus Rift being. He doesn't see it ending with just games. He's also said this is a long term investment in the future. They aren't planning for a return on investment any time soon. I also don't think anyone is expecting this thing to replace the computer monitor. You also have to remember this is the first iteration of it. How big and clunky was the first cell phone?
well to start off I myself could not care less about any other use of VR other than gaming. I can see how there are plenty of possiblities outside of gaming but I personally dont care about them. Having said that here is what I see VR useful for outside of gaming.
Virtual showroom (I want to see that house, RV or CAR in real time)
Virtual vacations like diving, sky diving etc (although this is more like games)
Training (things like nuclear reactor training)
better control over robotics and drones
none of these are impacted by you needing to take a shit or your desire to have a tablet.
The Mobile part of it is truely not that interesting and to be frank by the time they get to mobile solutions VR will already be mainstream.
as far as taking it on and off I have one and its a little easier than putting on a motorcycle helment and a little harder than putting on a baseball cap
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Fendel84M
Having participated in meetings, including video conference meetings, I can tell you that not being able to do anything with your hands is a problem. Not being able to get up and get information that might be relevant to the meeting is a problem. Being the only person in the meeting with a VR headset is going to be a problem too.
A virtual showroom is a possibility, but it still faces issues with mainstream acceptance. The video demonstrating how a virtual shopping experience would work shows the biggest one. The user surfs the internet to find the thing they want, then when they want to look at it they have to put the headset on. What happens if they don't like it or don't like that particular site? They have to take the headset off to find a different site because they have no idea where their hands are in relation to the keyboard. This is fundamentally different from how video games work. The user puts their headset on and keeps it on until they are done. Putting it on and taking it off aren't a fundamental part of the experience. It's too much work.
Virtual vacations are playing video games. As I said, it seems like a VR headset is ideally suited for this one thing.
Training seems like it could be an ideal use of the headset. The Army is already using simulations to train group tactics, so why not a more immersive training experience?
Regarding drones, there isn't enough information given through a headset. The operators absolutely need to use physical things in their environment to pilot drones. Unless we come up with some magical way to not have any lag between base stations, satelites and drones, seeing the radar output, output from imagery analysts the other people who are all participating in operating the drone, the "being there" benefit is going to be minimal. Maybe those undersea drones might benefit from this, but again lag is going to be a killer.
The biggest indicator that VR isn't going to reach mainstream acceptance is our current 3D technology in entertainment. How many 3D televisions were sold? Judging by the number of them at Best Buy, Wal Mart and Target, not too many. It's not a big selling point because putting on those glasses every time you want to see a 3D movie is a pain. We don't even have universal acceptance of 3D movie in movie theaters. VR headsets are more expensive, more complicated to use and have a smaller set of uses. Where is the path from where VR is now, to mainstream acceptance? What does a VR headset conveniently replace, and improve? What is a necessary need that a VR headset provides that would make the inconvenience of using them trivial, outside of gaming?
To the OP: Your arguments sound a lot like those prior to the release of the iPad. 'Doesn't do something new, been tried before and failed, other things do it better, etc'.
Really, the continual (if failed) attempts to produce this sort of thing shows that it does have some intellectual currency. Early iterations are always going to have some issues. Few things drop perfectly from the get go. There's a strong value from being one of the successful designers of a new branch of the tech tree. Note that Sony and Microsoft are also pursuing this idea. They'd like to be early leaders as well. In ten years, the available version of the Oculus Rift will doubtless be a very different critter than the version 1.0 that people are trying out right now.
It will just take some time to filter into 'the mainstream'.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Fendel84M
1. They (the industry) are making a module that can allow for you to see in the real world even with the Oculus on. Basically attached cameras.
2. I dont know (and barely care) what Facebooks plans are for virtual meetings. The business community is generally about 15 years behind the times on what is possible in that space anyway.
So until the business world figures out how a phone conference call with a shared screen works I am not that much intrested in speculating on how they are to figure out how an VR headset works.
3. 3D technology is EXTREEMLY different than VR and failure to understand that is a clear lack of understanding on what VR even is.
4. Has I had said before, all Oculus needs to do to reach mainstream acceptance is to be good in the game space...nothing more...that alone is a home run hit and that they have already done.
I think the main issue is the statement of
'Oculus Rift Faces an uphill battle to reach mainstream acceptance'.
Video games ARE mainstream, a wide adoption in just video games is enough to make the statement above invalid.
Originally posted by lizardbones No, the problem is that the Rift doesn't simplify anything, and it's not a drop in replacement for computer monitors or televisions. According to this article on The Guardian, fully one third of wearables are abandoned by the early adopters who bought them, and the reason is simple. For new technology to flourish, it simplifies something that already exists, or it improves something that already exists, replacing it. Compare the reception of wearables to the reception of cell phones, and then later smart phones. They replaced an existing technology, and in many ways improved on it and people are still buying more of them every year.
Flawed thinking. Technology is more often than not, not about 'replacing' but improving existing technology or compliment it. VR fits that bill. The remote control for the TV is not a replacement (we still have buttons on our TV) and many many more examples springs to mind.
Look at the car. The basics inner working of the engine haven't changed much if at all