I literally feel sorry for you, not in an unfriendly way, that you haven't seen the right demo yet and can't share the insane excitement that I have for this technology.

This is the FIRST consumer release! This is the Palm Pilot 1 of VR.

Yes most of the content right now is mediocre but there are some mindblowing experiences too.

For instance Elite Dangerous + DK2 + Motion Sim.

It literally feels like you are piloting a craft in outer space.

Here's a demo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqr8ee7GORY

I have a similar rig and I literally have to fight off the skeptics / marginally interested after they try it.

The "strap on a clumsy" headset part is going to go away quickly. Every sensor in there is being miniaturized by the day. Magic Leap (and others) are using tricks to project imagery directly onto your retina. The form factor will wind up wireless, probably look similar to google glass.

Oculus + 3D audio + input + eventual tactical is going to completely blur the lines of reality in ways we can't yet imagine - gaming, training, social interaction, SEX, therapy, etc, etc - it's all going to be different in 10 years because of VR.

I believe that being a student of VR at this point, which I believe will be the top mechanism to consume content in the future, is akin to being an early iphone dev.

Plus gave me a good excuse to order the CV1 :)

Hear, hear! I have a DK2 and the experience with E:D is stunning. It's got a brutal screen door effect in pixelation, hurts my face after 20 minutes (I need to wear glasses under it), can make you mildly motion sick, and is pretty low resolution. And it's awesome. I can't help but think about how much I loved Privateer when I was a kid, and this is better in every way, times 10. The little stuff like looking at a thing while flying and the interface highlights and tags it with no mouse/keyboard input - the first time that happens it feels like the damn thing is reading your mind. It's merely calculating where you're looking, but it feels unreal.

The actual experience is great despite enormous product flaws. I'm thrilled there's so many options coming down the pipe, as that will make the

That motion rig looks great. Where can I get one? Or how much did it cost to build?

I was backer 513 for the oculus kickstarter and am beyond pumped for my free cv1.

Check out http://www.xsimulator.net/ - you can build em for <$1k

And this is why I think we're heading for a revival (at least temporarily) of arcade places: this kind of setup would be a hit there. For normal gamers? I'm more skeptic, it's probably too early: not enough software, hardware still need many improvements: grid door effect, where are my hands issue, etc.

>This is the FIRST consumer release! This is the Palm Pilot 1 of VR.

Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s and 2000s. This isn't like being on the groundfloor of some new concept, its like a revival of something old. I wish Oculus all the luck in the world, but this technology has failed in the market many times. Yes, maybe more FPS and higher resolutions is what was needed, but I guess we'll see. Some 90's products:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/a-trip-down-virtual-rea...

Its funny how there's this "everything old is new again and we all suddenly have amnesia" attitude with VR advocates. They talk about the headsets which are pricey and annoying to use(and no one has solved the motion sickness problem perfectly yet). They talk about the metaverse, yet we've had Second Life for a decade and it didn't revolutionize anything and is largely an online joke.

Whether people think the social and economic cost of strapping a tissue size box to your face is worth it, is worthy of being skeptical about. 3D TV's came at a zero premium over regular TV's not too long ago, and no one wanted to wear those dorky glasses. Many people I know, myself included, avoid the 3D showings at theaters because of how gimmicky it is and how those glasses wash out the colors (not a concern with the Rift).

>It literally feels like you are piloting a craft in outer space.

You have no idea what its like to be in outer space. You're getting this manufactured and fake experience by game devs who also don't know what its like to be in outer space. That's what really bugs me about this platform, how incredibly fake everything is, yet somehow the marketing is all about it being 'real.' I would love a hardnosed simulator with all the tactile feedback and such involved, instead we're just getting Unity3D shovelware with basic 3D tropes like moving starfields and everyone suddenly thinks this is amazing. Its not. Its just a lot of hype from gamers obsessed with fake experiences and general gamer fanboyism, which is almost always unadulterated hype. Remember the Kinect and all the hype behind it? Its now a dead peripheral:

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/5-ways-xbox...

Hell, even the crowd friendly Wii motion controls have been put on the "gimmick" shelf after a, maybe, 2 or 3 year period where everyone was raving it was the future of gaming.

>t's all going to be different in 10 years because of VR.

According to HN/Reddit/Slashdot we'd have jetpacks, space hotels, 500 year lifespans, cancer cures, and robot servants by now. I'd be very careful with the old "just wait 10 years guys, then you'll see my questionable premise was actually right" trope. Ironically, its an antique.

> Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s. This isn't like being on the groundfloor of some new concept, its like a revival of something old.

A better comparison might be the first iPhone. There were smartphones before the iPhone, but the iPhone is the one we think of today as being the first REAL smartphone.

I'm really sick of fanboy products always being compared to a iphone. The Kinect was an iphone. The Ouya was an iphone. The Apple Watch was going to be the new iphone. Or other high profile kickstarter turkeys like the mprinter, smarty ring, myIDkey, etc.

Gee, maybe we should stop pretending we can all spot the next iphone from this far out?

In support of your comment, I would point out that gaming has become progressively less interesting for its technical developments over time. The first videogames really were revolutionary, even as they were derided for being crude, inauthentic, or simple transcriptions of games already playable with cards, pen and paper. The improvements from there have made them more accessible and appealing, but the forms and meanings of computer-driven interactivity haven't fundamentally changed - more realistic 3D just isn't as impressive as the first real-time 3D. We already passed the tipping point in terms of cultural impact, and VR is superfluous to that. It'll make its way into the world eventually, but not with the flash and bang that this generation is banking on.

Now, if we were talking about neural interfaces, that would be a more interesting discussion.

I think there's a good argument to be made that the sooner we make this tech boring, the better. I want this stuff to be off-the-shelf, got-it-by-default now. When it's fully proliferated and cheap with loads of Stack Overflow-like answers and tutorials for it (like phone accelerometers and motion capture software), the sooner we'll really start developing and digging into the cool stuff. And get the crufty stuff out of the way.

But I fundamentally disaggree that it's less interesting. I'm going to assume you're just jaded by the awesome we're constantly surrounded by instead of just taking the easy, boring interpretation. Even 2D animation is advancing where you wouldn't expect (I found the technical work giving the artists better control on The Paperman surprising [0]). New rendering philosophies, networking algorithms, AI/bots, social integration, all of this leads to a refinement that's well worth the effort.

It took a long, long time to get from oscilloscopes [1] to the Occulus, and hopefully in a couple generations we'll have even cooler stuff. Expect to see demos and then have to wait a while for the hard, brutal engineering work to make it actually usable [2].

For the Occulus, the real win is getting the feedback loop between a just-good-enough-monitor and the accelerometer down to few enough milliseconds the brain can kinda fall for it. Like a cartoon, but for motion feedback. Expect other companies to say "I can do better" and let the races begin. The Occulus is a big deal, and better stuff is just a little bit away.

Don't be jaded! Real cool stuff is in the pipe!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two [2] http://dougengelbart.org/events/1968-demo-highlights.html

The difference is presence. This gear is good enough to fool your lizard brain. That's the new part.

Your enthusiasm is infectious and I hope I can share it eventually!

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I couldn't have said it better. After a year, I'm really getting tired of having to explain this to such unimaginative people.

Have you tried VR? It sounds like either you haven't, or you did and had a shitty experience - because it wasn't until very recently that VR was even remotely usable. You should give the Oculus a shot when you have a chance. Sure, the headset is annoying to put on. But once you've spent a few hours in a high-quality VR experience, games on a normal monitor just feel clumsy and claustrophobic.

Carmack and Newell are going back to producing quality games. Those two have been in semi-retirement for years now, and VR is the thing that finally got them excited to make things again. Those two have been dreaming about VR gaming since the day multiplayer was added to Doom.

Also, the trolls still haven't figured out how to downvote here. Don't tip them off.

The best bet for Oculus and VR companies, in my opinion, is not to approach the market assuming that VR is going to be everywhere and used for everything in a few years. Sometimes, that's a safe assumption (like with the iPhone), but with a technology that has as many caveats as VR, marketing the product as if it's going to change everyone's life is the best way to torpedo it.

Case in point - Google Glass. I think Glass could have found viability in specific uses, but they marketed as "people are going to wear this everywhere!" and the resulting backlash completely destroyed the concept in the mind of the consumer.

Not everything has to be an overnight success, or requires every person on the planet using it to be successful. HDTV took years and years to gain traction, during which time the technology improved and became cheaper by leaps and bounds.

I think the current Oculus marketing message - "we know it's expensive; the technology is still improving; we don't really know exactly what the killer apps and best uses cases are for VR yet; this is targeted at hobbyists and people who want to push the envelope and set the stage for the next phase of VR" - is right on. They should stick with that and make sure they don't drift into "VR will revolutionize your life and your social network" territory. Let the early adopters figure out what to do with it.

A lot of people felt the same way about Smart phones, until cheaper options with decent features arrived. Now nearly every one agrees with the utility of smart phones, to a point most people would find quite difficult to live without one.

The same will unfold with VR over coming years. Affordable options with great content and applications can make this a common place gadget.

I currently live in a living room, disturbance and lack of privacy are the biggest annoyances. Something like this looks like an ideal way to create a wall of privacy regardless of who is around. The use cases for such a device are uncountable.

I think this is a bit like a "pocket PC" in the early 2000's. It was just a toy for nerds, then they got more and more useful, then they got re-branded as smartphones and made it big.

You're looking at the Palm Pilot of VR. VR, and mixed reality, is going to get more compelling.

I think you're right. I have a DK-1 and I think it's a cool novelty, but in terms of mass market appeal and everyday uses, I don't really see it. You look weird with the thing on your head, it's heavy and fatigues your neck, you still have to use a kb/mouse input device to control anything other than where your avatar is looking, you can't see anything else around you without pulling the HMD away from your face (bigger annoyance than it sounds), and nobody else can see your screen (in fact, when I used the DK-1, I would often clone the output onto the main monitor so my wife could see what I was seeing and vice-versa). It kills the limited real-life social interaction people can have with video gaming now.

3D TV was very similar in that it worked great for one person, but once you got more than that, you had to make sure everyone had their own pair of glasses, everyone was sitting at an appropriate angle, etc. You couldn't just walk in and out and have a casual social TV experience, because for people without the glasses or sitting at the wrong angle, the image is blurry and unwatchable.

I think there is a market for VR, but I don't think it's the mass market. That doesn't mean VR won't eventually get there, but it's not there now.

The big breakthrough with the Rift CV1 / HTC Vive is a system to track headsets and peripherals in 3D space, allowing for

One of the reasons why it may lack real-world interest is lack of content.

People need to believe in the medium and pioneer content in spite of lack of interest, in hope to generate that interest, or it will remain an unsolved chicken-and-egg problem.

I believe Newell and Carmack do want to make high quality "games" in the sense of interactive experiences, and they see VR as an opportunity for that. What's required is patience and dedicated resources, fuelled by early adopters/aspirers.

That's fair. Seeing an impressive example of the tech put to good use might get me excited about it, something beyond another 3D "walking around" simulator.

Maybe it's one of those technologies that needs a breakthrough moment, or to reach critical mass to where mainstream adoption starts occurring. Because right now it feels very "really? We're trying to make this happen again?" to me.

Actually because of the way your brain and body are linked: a 3D "walking around" simulator, (while sitting stationary) is currently the worst possible VR experience.

The best, is piloting a machine - car, plane, etc. You're in a seat, like your real body is.

You're waiting for the: experiencing a X-Wing in motion while in a dog fight destroying TIE fighters over Jakku, R2-D2 beeping in your ears demo.

If you get the chance try Eve Valkyrie on a DK2. It is one of the closest, currently existing, demos to the one I described above.

Where this is heading is augmentation that shrinks until it's unnoticeable that you're equipped with anything. Virtual and augmented reality merge, and the display components of traditional products disappear. Everything will get a virtual interface.

Gaming will be about as important to mixed reality as gaming is to all of computing today.

It's shaping up to be one of the most revolutionary technologies of our generation.

Agreed. To look at a monitor, only the eyes have to move; with VR goggles, something needs to be attached to your head AND you'd have to move your whole head to see the environment.

Also, is it good to have your eyes focusing on something that close to your face for a long period of time?

(not a doctor)

>is it good to have your eyes focusing on something that close to your face for a long period of time?

The converse thought about the differences between viewing a VR screen vs a 2D monitor.

VR Screens you have the capability of your eyes needing to adjust to different depths. That is, the muscles that dictate the position of your eyes will need to be recalibrated slightly when you start viewing entities at different depths.

With 2D monitors you're approximately at the same text tracking rate.

There's ergonomic software that will periodically instruct you to look away from your computer screen to focus on points in the distance for the health of your eyes.

There are lenses; the image is around 1.5 meters away.

didn't realize that, thanks!

The optics involved mean you aren't focusing 2 inches from your face, with the DK2 you're focusing at 1.3m and the DK1 was at infinity (not sure about CV1). So you could argue its better for eye strain.

I bet opinions like yours were prevalent when 3D games first came out. "This 3D thing is nice, but why don't you just concentrate on making a better videogames?".

As someone old enough to remember that time, no one said that.

As also someone old enough to remember that time, lots of SNES and Sega Genesis owners were saying that. And people were getting sick from Doom at far greater rates than they are today from Oculus Rifts.

> And people were getting sick from Doom at far greater rates than they are today from Oculus Rifts.

That remains to be seen when VR headsets arrive in households. We just don't know that yet.

I got convinced by the tech after trying a Develover Kit, but the that people (inclduing me) will get sick from it is my big concern.

>>people (inclduing me) will get sick from it is my big concern

Sick doesn't mean cancer or tuberclosis.

I remember from my childhood watching TV was considered bad, because it was thought to be bad fore one's eyes. Ear phones were bad for the ears and reading on the smart phone in a bus makes me motion sick to date.

Like everything there is a middle ground.

I mean getting sick, as in having to throw up. A bit like motion sickness, though it is not exactly the same thing.

If enough people can't use it because they get uncomfortable from it, because they puke on the floor, that would be a bad thing. I understand that there is a lot of work being done to prevent that. And still I think it is something to look out for.

I've ran demos on the DK2 where only 1 person out of 200 said they got dizzy. They certainly didn't puke anywhere. This was code running in a web browser. I would say, from the hardware standpoint, the issue is solved. It's up to developers to write software.

"Sick from Doom"?? I don't remember anybody getting sick from Wolfenstein or Doom. Controversy around (for the time) violent graphic realism? Sure. Seasickness? No.

I was one of the developers on the original Doom and got so sick from playing it that it motivated me to debug my code faster. The phases were no problemo, sweating, farting, nausea, then that was it: gotta lie down and hug the cold, firm floor.

I eventually became less sensitive to it. I imagine the same will happen with VR after we get our "VR legs".

Bonus: "VR legs" have been shown to carry over into meatspace. As in, there are VR users reporting "I can read in the car for the first time!" But, it takes a lot of slow, careful build-up to do well.

Conversely, if someone has bad experiences and tries to power-through them anyway repeatedly, it can build up an aversion similar to a "bad tequila night" and ruin VR for that person permanently.

Thanks for making Doom! :)

Interesting info that I was not aware of. I guess I was just a casual player, not a developer like yourself doing it all day long (super-kudos btw - you changed the gaming world). All I remember about Wolfenstein and then Doom, is the wonder, the wow. I personally was amazed that this 3d rendering, basic as it was, was even possible, at the time. We were well before any 3d graphics acceleration. This was bog standard frame buffer VGA, or even, for Wolfenstein, CGA? Correct me if I'm wrong. Silicon Graphics workstations were super-exotic!

I suppose VR has a higher hurdle-rate because the nausea thing has been pre-telegraphed by early adopters of suboptimal beta tech. But I have no doubt that immersive technology is the future.

Oh, i did. Not enough to keep me from playing, but when it hit, it hit hard. Hard enough that i still get minor flashbacks even from screenshots. Surprisingly, the first game where i did not have that problem was, of all things, Descent. Must have been something specific about the movement and/or projection.

People getting nauseous from first person games was and still is fairly common.

I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted, but it's true. Hardcore gamers complained about 3D all the time in the early days. They felt 3D games often ran poorly, were more buggy and had less features than the 2D games before them.

Sometimes they were just curmudgeons who don't like change, sometimes they were right on all counts.