Zuckerberg Teases An 'Affordable' Standalone Oculus VR Headset (techcrunch.com) 63
At the Oculus Connect developers conference today, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg teased a standalone Oculus VR headset that fits somewhere imbetween the Gear VR consumer headset for Samsung Galaxy users and the high-end Oculus Rift headset designed for professional gamers. TechCrunch reports: The hallmark feature of the new prototype standalone headset is positional tracking. In a brief demo video, the headset appeared to be a modified Rift with a compute module embedded into the back of the headset. This positional tracking technology allows the headset to understand where it is in physical space and adjust the onscreen content accordingly. With 360 videos, you're limited to a spherical viewpoint from a fixed point, but with positional tracking enabled you can walk through an experience and see a story from every angle. There's a reason that plenty of enthusiasts refer to this as the hallmark feature of "real VR." Zuckerberg said development is still incredibly early, but that it's on the product roadmap. Unbelievably the word "affordable" was mentioned at some point. Oculus did also announce that its Oculus Touch motion controllers will be coming out on December 6th. They will cost $199, and will put the combined Oculus Rift price at roughly $800. Pre-orders for Touch start on October 10th.
We've heard this before (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll believe it when I see it. Oculus was supposed to be half it's current asking price.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing new things harder than expected! See also: automated cars.
Oculus is still cheap. Not long ago, a 21 inch CRT display cost about 4 times the price of a high end, consumer headset today.
Don't even ask how much I spent on my first headset, IIRC it was '98. I paid almost half retail (it had become clear it was going nowhere).
Re: (Score:2)
Doing new things harder than expected! ... Don't even ask how much I spent on my first headset, IIRC it was '98
Something that was being done in 98 is a new thing?
FWIW, I had five of the Virtuality pods in my shop back in 96. 2 Dactyl, 2 Boxing, and one Zone Runner. the only new thing that Oculus did was....... Um... Nothing.... Nothing at all.
New in Oculus: technology, not features. (Score:2)
the only new thing that Oculus did was....... Um... Nothing.... Nothing at all.
There's hardly a new *thing* that the Oculus does.
It does the exact same thing as old VRs back then, only it tries to said things better, thanks to *new technology*.
- It tries to dramatically cut down the price of optics and display:
- For display, instead of relying on small very specialized displays (e.g.: like the LCOS found in some) it relies on displays that are now extremely popular and mass produced thanks to smart phone (simply high resolution OLED displays from smartphones)
- For it goes for the "alm
Re: (Score:2)
For the record: 90s headsets weren't much pukeyer than the Oculus (once you got them running on GHz+ machines and got the frame rates up). It all comes down to content.
90s never reached anything like critical mass. And no killer app (VR porn).
It's definitely personnal preferences (Score:2)
For the record: 90s headsets weren't much pukeyer than the Oculus (once you got them running on GHz+ machines and got the frame rates up).
It definitely depends on the user.
I've never had any problem, neither with the VFX1, no the Virtual IO I-Glasses.
(Neither the blurry display, nor the significant latency did bother me).
(The 2 that where demoed at a local computer shop)
But friends of mine got quite dizzy and disoriented while playing Descent on the same hardware.
It all comes down to content.90s never reached anything like critical mass. And no killer app (VR porn).
Because back then, adjusted for inflation they did cost an arm and a leg.
As stated above, we only played using the demo hardware at a computer shop.
We couldn't manage to afford them.
Re: (Score:2)
Descent (actually Descent 2) was the most pukey terrible VR experience ever implemented. It's everything done 'wrong' for VR.
I got a VFX1 at about half retail (IIRC at was about $700) and played with it for years. It was much better a couple of years later when GHz machines drove frame rates to 200 (games supporting the VFX1 having been made in the 200MHz era). Yes I know it refreshed at 30Hz, clear vSynch.
I should dust off the VFX1, and see how it feels next to the Oculus. I bet Descent on the Oculus
No pukey here... (Score:2)
Descent (actually Descent 2) was the most pukey terrible VR experience ever implemented. It's everything done 'wrong' for VR.
Well, *I* didn't have any nausea or whatever while playing it. I even though the 3D effect added a bit to the immersion.
My only complain was the accelerometers input weren't that resposive and a bit too cumber some for this game.
Dual joysticks (with optionnal pedals) was and is still my preferred control setup for 6-DOF games.
But well again, I'm not the one crawling on the ground after each play. (I don't suffer much from sea sickness) So your mileage might vary...
I got a VFX1 at about half retail (IIRC at was about $700) and played with it for years. It was much better a couple of years later when GHz machines drove frame rates to 200 (games supporting the VFX1 having been made in the 200MHz era). Yes I know it refreshed at 30Hz, clear vSynch.
I should dust off the VFX1, and see how it feels next to the Oculus.
Finding compatible drivers (and even a comp
Re: (Score:2)
I put the VFX dedicated machine in the closet with the VFX1. It should just boot once I hook a battery to CMOS and setup the motherboard. Didn't need to be reminded of all the effort I put in finding an early VooDoo (rush) ISA board with a VESA feature connector. Waste of time, couldn't render in 256 color mode.
IIRC the VFX did stereoscopic by suppressing the interleaved images on either side.
I never get motion sick, but Descent 2 on the VFX1 was 10 minute maximum playtime. The lack of 'up' was the kil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to show you why your comparison doesn't make sense. Keeping in mind that this is talking about CRTs in the era where they were the best choice.
A CRT works even with cheaper/lower end graphics adapter provided the adapter supports the standard. A rift requires a very expensive graphics adapter to work properly.
A CRT was essential to a home desktop computer. A Rift is only essential for VR which is a niche novelty at this point.
A CRT could be found in a number of less expensive configurations that
That what was the point (Score:2)
A CRT works {...}
So you've successfully proven the point of the poster you're replying to:
- a CRT was a vital part of a PC installation back then.
- taking into account inflation, CRTs did cost an arm and a leg back then
- a VR is a novelty. A gadget for hardcore geeks to play with
- VR headset cost a fraction of the above mentionned CRT price.
So a modern toy for a couple of people to experiment is less taxing on your wallet, than a vital part of an installation used to be back then.
And that's at a time when headset are still
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, a 21 incher was the height of luxury. Insanely expensive.
Before that, Tektronix graphics terminals cost as much as houses.
Deflation... (Score:2)
Back in the day, a 21 incher was the height of luxury. Insanely expensive.
Before that, Tektronix graphics terminals cost as much as houses.
At this pace, the next generation will be loudly complaining that their luxury gadgets cost a whole pair of chocolate candy bars worth more than normal goods and therefore are never going to catch up because of the crazy price.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I got a NEC 17" display that was capable of displaying 1600x1200! Used! In 1999! Only $250! What a steal.
I was the envy of all my friends. And it only weighed half as much as I did when I was in high school. 3 inch bezel was great for attaching sticky notes to. There must have been twelve analog dials along the bottom of that screen to adjust for various things.
I never did own a 21" CRT, I don't think I owned a table sturdy enough (or large enough) to house something of that
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is you had more choices. You could get the insanely expensive 21" or you could get something much cheaper. You needed one either way in order to use a computer which was fast becoming necessary for a variety of reasons. This drives sales which in turn brings down cost.
With VR you have two choices: expensive, and more expensive, and it's something nobody really needs. The two are not reasonably comparable, and the argument is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
But by that logic why would anyone buy a $700 GTX 1080 when you can game (even VR) on a $200 GTX 1060?
Re: (Score:2)
When someone does have disposable income to throw at a luxury item, they're going to go for the item that gives them the most bang for their buck. In this case, a higher end video card has far more application than a VR headset. Are you going to drop $700 on something that improves all your games, or are you going to drop $800 on something that only benefits a limited subset?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention suffer from obvious "screen door" effects, and lag times that rapidly nauseated all but the most iron-stomached of gamers.
Instead they decided to dramatically upgrade the responsiveness and release something most people can actually enjoy using for a normal-length gaming session, and had to increase the price accordingly.
I'll admit I'm disappointed, as it means I can't afford to get in on the first generation of decent VR, but I think they made the right choice. They are kind of the flagship
Re: (Score:1)
While DK2 had some lower specs, it didn't have the god-ray problem, red-tint problems and it had exchangeable lenses that made it possible to use without glasses. Meanwhile CV1 didn't brought any new features (still no passthrough camera, no tracked controllers on launch), just a general bit of polish and upped specs. Given the drastic price increase of CV1 and all those problems it felt rather lackluster overall, especially since Vive pretty much stole the show with roomscale and tracked controllers. Oculu
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that a more affordable VR platform is important, especially at this time. I'm not altogether certain that either the Vive or Rift can afford a significant price cut at the moment - not enough to make them competitive with the Playstation kit.
Honestly though, I think the PSVR might be *exactly* what is needed to seriously jump-start a VR software base - good enough specs for a decent "first gen" experience, superior in comfort, and only $500 instead of $800 for the Vive or Rift+touch. Perhaps even
Only Works with Facebook. (Score:2)
Enables you to view videos of your neighbors cat in full VR!
Palmer Luckey (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not good enough, they need to find all Trump supporters in the organization and fire them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its because he is using his wealth to bully and to surreptitiously distort political discourse at a time when we really don't need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not because he's a Trump supporter you moron.
Its because he is using his wealth to bully and to surreptitiously distort political discourse at a time when we really don't need it.
So... like Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
"Its because he is using his wealth to bully and to surreptitiously distort political discourse at a time when we really don't need it."
Lolwat. The guy gave a little more than three months' rent ($10,000) to an organization dedicated to shitposting because he thought that their mission was lulzy.
a) That money will probably cover the salary of one of the company's employees for one to five months.
b) Do you even _watch_ TV? Multiple six and seven-figure ad campaigns are a regular thing for the major players,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that main stream media attack and now consider the main stream media blatantly buying election, George Clueless, blatantly ugly hundreds of thousands of dollars blue plate special, the ultimate fuck you to us nobody voters and this arseholes launched an attack on a computer geek (oh look it's the empty head cheer leaders and jock strap douche bags on the attack against nerds and geeks thing all over again).
So what the fuck was he doing that was so evil, taking the piss out of politicians that li
This is not a good next step (Score:2)
The clear next step, to me, is wireless connection to a computer.
A good VR experience takes way more grunt than you're going to get in a low-power head mounted device anytime soon. Current VR experiences benefit from any extra bit of GPU horsepower, compute speed, or basically any improvement they can get. Using a Rift or Vive, you're working with i7s and GTX 1080s, and still you're not able to run consistently at the supersampling levels you want. Ideally, you'd also have a higher resolution screen with
Re: (Score:1)
GAH! I just wrote a long reply disagreeing with your assertion that wireless connection to PC is the future.
Then I changed from html to text option and it pissed away my response.
Anyway, check http://www.movidius.com/ [movidius.com] Gyro-based positional detection is going away. It will switch to image-based. That is some graphics processing being done on the HMD. There will be "synergies" when the display processor is also moved onto the HMD. Got to shorten runs on the bus - just like in the good old days on a PC.
Havin
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that eventually a standalone option will be preferable - I just don't think you can make a good enough one now, and I think attempting it is going to mean either huge costs (since you're not reusing current hardware) or huge compromises (ie. terrible performance).
I'm currently running a Vive with a 1080, and I still often can't keep framerate perfect (which you really want) at good supersampling (which makes a huge difference too). Sure you'll get some advantages with a dedicated device and integra
Re: (Score:2)
For wireless, have you heard of the Quark VR adapter being worked on for the Vive? http://arstechnica.com/gaming/... [arstechnica.com]
Sounds... unimpressive to me, especially seeing how as it streams over WiFi instead of a more optimized, higher bandwidth protocol, practically guaranteeing inadequate bandwidth and excessive lag. (though I don't know - if it only faked a dedicated wifi network well enough to not interfere with anything else, while mostly using a more optimized protocol...) But I think the basic concept is so
Re: (Score:2)
You may well be right on graphics and how this will play out; I don't know what kinds of things people will make and what will catch on. I'm sure a lot of my opinion is just informed by what I want personally: the same setup I have now, but wireless.
And yeah, I'd be surprised if the HDMI->WiFi->HDMI type things end up producing something good (even though these guys in particular seem confident). Like, you say, I expect a proper wireless solution will require a custom protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking back on this, and I should have made explicit that I don't think this is a step *forward*, more a step sideways. Analogous to how technologies developed and refined for high-end professional race cars end up being spun off into consumer vehicles as well. The cutting edge appeals to (or at least is affordable by) a very small percentage of the total car market.
As for wireless.... I'm not sure there will aver be a decent solution - seems like they still haven't even made a wireless mouse that
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have anything to add, and I don't mean to be weird... but, uh, thanks for posting. For the first time in a while, I've come away from a discussion on Slashdot with something new to think about.
Your perspective makes sense... and I am going to be wondering all day why wireless mice still perform so poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to have anything to do with Oculus after the Palmer Luckey revelations...
Looks at Facebook.... looks at Palmer.... .. looks at Facebook.... looks at Palmer... looks at Zuckerburg... looks at Palmer...
I get it now.. your joking.
Hey Zucker.... (Score:1)
I will never buy anything to do with facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
I manage a museum that has both Oculus Rift and Google Cardboard available for the public to use. The unanimous opinion of hundreds of people who tried both is that there's no comparison between even the best phone versions and the Oculus. I can only assume that your experience with the Oculus has been with a substandard computer because seriously... there is no comparison.
Zuckerberg representing Oculus, Luckey absent (Score:2)
Just say no to stalking and walled gardens (Score:3, Interesting)
Reasons I don't like Facebook and don't intend to purchase Touch or CV2:
- Oculus runs 24x7 and connects 24x7 to Facebook servers constantly wasting power, network and system resources to stalk people by at the very least uploading list of every VR program they've ever ran even third party software totally unrelated to Oculus home.
- Random forced updates of low quality and no back out with proven track record of breaking shit.
- North Korean style privacy policy granting insane rights including rummaging through your computer and extracting complete inventory of all content and software.
- Online install without any offline download. This is intentionally engineered to allow Facebook to retroactively waltz in and fuck everyone over with more draconian bullshit at their pleasure as if existing updates were not bad enough: Random breakage, introducing hardware DRM, retroactively imposing artificial system requirements that turn working systems into broken ones for no reason other than laziness and indifference.
- External sources toggle is a FU hoop intended to artificially advantage Oculus home.
- Oculus home required to run whether you want it or not.
- Account required to install CV1 even if you don't want one and don't intend on using their app store.
- CYA warnings show up every time you use it and can't be stopped even with registry hacks.
- Facebook legal department asserts physical product is in fact a "service" and only recourse for not agreeing to new service terms is stop using product you paid >$600 for.
- Instantly killed off all community shit that made Oculus and attracted attention to the platform the very second CV1 rolled out.
- Facebook is incapable of having a vision for VR HMD beyond cyber stalking, advertising and walled gardens. It's what they do.. it's what they are. It's all they care about.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest reason the Vive beats the Oculus Rift in most reviews is because of the controllers and room scale VR. For the headset itself, Oculus has a slight edge (more comfortable).
The proper controllers for the Oculus are arriving now, and it seems like it is also capable of room scale, so maybe things will change.
Millionaire (Score:2)