9 ms·

Facebook Is Shutting Down VR Content Division Oculus Story Studio

133 points by Impossible 9y ago

sandworm101 9y ago
Film makers don't want to use VR. It is very limiting. Films in 3d were never very good, mostly because of the limitations it placed on camera movements. VR will be the same. When you cannot control what the audience is looking at you must resort to tricks, repetitions and slow pacing to ensure that they see what they need to before you move on. The beauty of film, over theatre or other "3d" experiences, is that the director can grab the audience by the eyeballs, force them to see what he wants/needs them to see. That's why films can be so much faster and more direct than live entertainment. Take your favourite movie, or even one you just hated. Think of how it would be to "sit in" the action, tilting your head to look at anything and everything. You will miss all the details. You will miss the facial cues, the many non-verbal interactions between characters, because you were instead looking at the shiny thing in the corner. VR is for interactive experiences and theme park rides, not the carefully controlled storytelling of film. Think of GOTG, of sitting in the spare seat of a spaceship during a battle. Every time a character says something you will hear it, but miss seeing them actually say it because you didnt know to look at them in time. Think of all the wasted effort to animate Rocket's face if the audiance is never looking at him while he speaks.
- drdeadringer 9y ago
  Cinequest film festival in San Jose, CA this past year added VR to their offering of entertainment delivery. Granted it was a mix of VR films, VR scene immersions, and panel-like how-to discussions, but doing so was an interesting choice.
- CharlesW 9y ago
  > Film makers don't want to use VR. Creators often like to play with multiple mediums. I'd give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, and assume they understand that VR is a much different medium.
- jonchang 9y ago
  Well, VR films are a different medium, and I would expect that VR filmmakers would have to work harder to get the effects they want. This would necessarily result in relinquishing some amount of control over what people can see -- which is fine! How have video games like Half Life 2, which never takes control of the player's camera, find ways to get players to look in the right direction? There's a lot of techniques like using lighting and other cues, without beating the players' heads with loss-of-control cutscenes.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > Film makers don't want to use VR It may well be that those who do want to use VR for this won't be coming from the ranks of traditional film-making. I imagine a lot of them will be young, and will be jumping into this without a significant background in other media.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Photographers don't want to use cinema. It is very limiting. When you cannot give the audience time to take an image in, you must resort to tricks, repetitions and pacing to ensure that they see what they need to in the frame. The beauty of photography, over cinema or other "motion" experiences, is that the photographer can grab the audience by the eyeballs, force them to see what he wants/needs them to see. That's why photographs can be so much faster and more direct than films.
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    Film and photography are too similar for such comparison. Film is inclusive of photography. Everything that can be done in photography can also be done in film, especially with today's devices that display both as easily. VR is different. There are things in film that cannot be done in VR, as there are thing in VR that cannot be done in film. But in terms of storytelling, VR is to film as the "Choose your own adventure" is to novels. By allowing the viewer too much freedom to ignore one path for another, the artist's message becomes lost. To defend his message the artist will resort to trickery, extra efforts that detract from the work. A Disneyworld ride can be fun, but we don't expect anything near the depth we would from a film.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      I'm not sure that you're imagining the correct kind of VR content here. Imagine a film as set in VR where you are simply seeing the film from the first person perspective of one of the main characters, but it is otherwise still a film, i.e. you have no control over movement, pacing, plot, etc. It's just a film that you see from a different perspective, rather than something more akin to a videogame with watcher agency which you seem to be implying. I think this format has a decent chance of taking off. Hell, it's already taking off in VR porn.
    - erikpukinskis 9y ago
      You can't get closer to cinema. You can't take your time.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
- beeandapenguin 9y ago
  The Tribeca Film Festival hosted a VR immersive this year. There was a showcase of several creative VR films and experiences. I'd say filmmakers are diving head first into VR. The descriptions of the films sound fascinating. https://tribecafilm.com/immersive https://tribecafilm.com/immersive
- dylan604 9y ago
  "Film makers don't want to use VR. It is very limiting." To an extent, I'd agree as I myself miss the ability to use different lenses, set the framing, etc as storytelling devices. However, it is a matter of knowing the limitations of the medium, and not forcing "traditional" film making techniques into the new medium. Only frustration will result. However, this format is new and evolving. Part of the idea is to give the viewer control over everything. Forcing a traditional linear story line is going against the grain of VR. More and more projects are coming out with a "choose your own adventure" concept. Now that the tech is getting better, the tools content producers have to use will allow for more interactive content to be made. If the tech survives long enough to get there.
- agar 9y ago
  I heard an interesting interview with a filmmaker who was adamantly opposed to the terms "VR filmmaking" and "VR cinematography" - and not for the reasons you would expect. To him, cinematography is an art and a science. Nearly 100 years of experience has gone into understanding lighting, scene composition, set design, focus, directorial decisions, blocking, framing, etc. VR throws all of that knowledge out the window. As you say, camera motion is constrained. Cues change. Scene design is completely different. There's no quick cut, no soft focus, no depth of field. It is as different a set of skills as photography and painting. But, unlike your pessimistic view of the future, he was (verbally) jumping out of his seat in excitement at the new challenges, and new opportunities this completely new medium could provide for storytellers. Sure, VR storytelling is at the "Trip to the Moon" phase of refinement but it sure won't stay there. Don't compare current film to future VR. Future VR stories may (will?) be something completely unique unto themselves.
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    My view of the future is only pessimistic if one assumes that VR is the future. Im pessimistic of the medium, not the future of film or storytelling. I didnt support the "4d" craze either. That too came to nothing and film survived.
  - thenomad 9y ago
    I'm a filmmaker who moved into developing VR experiences, and I couldn't agree more. Film and VR are vastly different media.
- phantom_package 9y ago
  By definition, the people that make interesting cinematic experiences in VR won't be "film makers". I don't know if we've created a job title for them yet. It's a completely different medium, with completely different advantages, drawbacks, and considerations. Applying film techniques in a virtual environment is not the right approach, as your examples demonstrate. The really compelling experiences in VR will embrace the constraints you mentioned, not try to emulate a medium in which they didn't exist. I went to New York a few months ago and saw a play called Sleep No More. It takes place across 5 floors of a warehouse, converted into an incredibly immersive series of sets. It's loosely-based on Hamlet, with multiple storylines playing out simultaneously in different parts of the hotel/hospital/graveyard/theatre. The audience wears fawkes-esque masks and is not allowed to speak, nor are they acknowledged by the actors in any way. You can wander anywhere you like, follow any actors you find interesting, rummage through drawers, read books you find lying around, etc. You really do feel like a ghost, and being able to move around the actors (or even leave the room, if you feel like it), is incredibly fun and interesting. It certainly didn't feel like a limitation. So maybe VR has more to learn from theatre (and specifically interactive theatre) than film? Food for thought.
  - mch82 9y ago
    Yes! Theater and sports
  - thenomad 9y ago
    Sleep No More is one of my usual touchstones when talking about narrative in VR. (Speaking as a VR dev here.) In general, narrative in VR has to be approached VERY differently to film. It's not just that the viewpoint's moving or that it's 360 degrees, it's also that the viewpoint has its own agency within the environment. Of all the comparisons I've come up with, actually, pen-and-paper roleplaying games seem to be the most useful ones when discussing how to fit narrative into a VR context. There's a commonality of simulated world and tension between experience and narrative there that doesn't really exist anywhere else.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Findeton 9y ago
  I do not agree with this.
- robert_tweed 9y ago
  In addition to the other replies, IMO, VR film-making isn't even a thing yet. 360 videos are not VR. Right now, VR exists as a medium in the form of games and other sims using real-time rendering. Film-making will require light-field cameras, which don't yet exist in any practical sense. However, progress is being made: https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/11/lytro-cinema-is-giving-filmmakers-400-gigabytes-per-second-of-creative-freedom/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/11/lytro-cinema-is-giving-fil... As for how it would work as a medium, I would compare storytelling in games with cut-scenes to something like Skyrim. One is about showing the story to a passive viewer, the other is about immersion in the story. They aren't directly comparable. Ulimately though, I think even light-field photograhy will be relatively short lived. The future will be simulated reality: essentially current game engines with much better rendering (possibly real-time path-tracing like Octane/Brigade). The reason being, you can film an actor, but unless you transfer that performance into a simulation, it cannot react to a nearby human. Another thing that will most likely emerge to address similar problems from a different angle is "virtual theatre" this already exists to a limited extent in the form of multiplayer games. Whether these will most resemble tradition artforms, or most resemble current-gen games remains to be seen. However, even games are starting to come of age as an artform and we're seeing more games that are closer to traditional stories (without relying on cutscenes), or interactive art (e.g., Journey). Also two of the most popular games of all-time, The Sims and Minecraft[1], are technically not even games. These distinctions are going to become more and more obvious in VR, and new categories will emerge as the audience moves away from traditional gamers and other early adopters, into the mainstream. [1] Only applies to Minecraft in sandbox mode.
tostitos1979 9y ago
One factor that greatly limits my use of VR is that it is so uncomfortable with glasses on. I've seen people propose hacks and kickstarter projects. I don't understand why the people leading VR are turning a blind eye to the problem (no pun intended).
- LiweiZ 9y ago
  They just want to meet a subgroup's needs first. When there is a traction, they can move forward from there. But it seems the subgroup did not buy in after serval attempts.
- badlucklottery 9y ago
  I've had issues with glasses + Occulus but the Vive is a decent bit more roomy in there and it hasn't been an issue. Getting the headset on and off can still be a chore because I need to loosen the straps first. You can also get prescription lens inserts but I think that's overkill for most people.
  - TwoBit 9y ago
    You can just cut the foam on the sides which inhibit the arms on each side. Put the foam back if you want to restore it.
- farnsworth 9y ago
  Glasses have been "cool again" for the past few years. I don't know that we're overdue for another fashion cycle, but could VR be one thing that pushes them out again? I usually wear glasses, contacts some days, but if I know I'm going to be playing with a VR headset, I'll usually wear contacts that day.
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    Depending on what's wrong with your eyes you don't have a choice.
    - 9y ago
CharlesW 9y ago
This is smart, and great news for creators. As good as Facebook's own studio may have been, having to compete with Facebook for attention in a nascent medium is a huge problem.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  But, then, developers have to trust Facebook as the owner of the platform. That's not always been a good bet. Albeit, this is a different model that I'm not 100% sure about, but hope the investment/development agreements provide good coverage for developers.
  - CharlesW 9y ago
    > But, then, developers have to trust Facebook as the owner of the platform. That's not always been a good bet. For sure, but that would've also been an issue in the scenario where Facebook was also competing with you as a content developer. At least this way, small developers have a chance to establish themselves before Big Media starts taking VR seriously.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      Yeah, just feels a little more transparent when you know you're competing with them. This deal where Facebook is like "hey, we're out of this game" seems like a setup. But, that's coming from someone who built on F8 years ago and witnessed their treatment of developers first-hand. And, we've all seen what they've done to some popular apps on their platform. As well, their shameless capacity to copy successful apps (e.g. SnapChat) is just unnerving when you're considering partnering on their platform. I also fell for their "Hey, come build a free business page on FB and drive your users to us; in return we'll make it easier for our users to find you". Sounded great, until they started charging you to reach your own audience after undertaking so much effort to corral them on Facebook. All together, the sweeter they make the deal sound, the more wary I become.
lightyrs 9y ago
It’s a VR play. That’s the frothiest space in the Valley right now. Nobody understands it but everyone wants in. Any idiot could walk into a fucking room, utter the letters ‘v’ and ‘r’, and VC’s would hurl bricks of cash at them. By the time they find out it’s vaporware, it’s too late. I’ve got to get into this. — Erlich Bachman
- aub3bhat 9y ago
  I think there should be a version for AI too. It’s an AI play. That’s the frothiest space in the Valley right now. Nobody understands it but everyone wants in. Any idiot could walk into a fucking room, utter the letters ‘A’ and ‘I’, and VC’s would hurl bricks of cash at them. By the time they find out it’s just off the shelf models passed around as secret tech for next Deep Mind, it’s too late. I’ve got to get into this.
  - crusso 9y ago
    IOT
    - jhpankow 9y ago
      Software Defined
      - elvirs 9y ago
        anybody remembers 'semantic search'?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        taneq 9y ago
        It's now just "search". At least, Google's search is getting very good at "do what I mean". Occasionally it's a complete swing-and-a-miss but often it's spookily accurate.
wavefunction 9y ago
If facebook had real vision they'd focus on the Story Studio and forget the 'news/live video' briar-patch they're confidently striding into. Build up the first early VR IP properties by making them widely available so they're established as a cultural bedrock like Disney has been with perpetual Mickey Mouse protection and the acquisition of a significant portion of your childhood (Marvel,Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.) and you've built something that will last for at least a few generations and give your succeeding executives breathing room to maneuver. Or hire a bunch of labor to watch unrestricted widecast videos (I'm hoping they're just reinforcing ml analysis of videos in the short term, please?)
jamesrom 9y ago
Measured business decision. Content producers are probably scared that Facebook is in the content business while also building the headsets. Content producers have every right to be wary.
jamesjyu 9y ago
This makes a ton of sense. Oculus's biggest leverage is in improving the platform, not creating content. If anything, that money would be better spent on directly funding other studios.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
oculusthrift 9y ago
as someone who actually owns an oculus, i think this is bad news. the biggest problem right now is the lack of quality content. the best content ive seen has come from Facebook so this is sad.
- ggggtez 9y ago
  Wasnt that the reason 3d TV failed as well? Perhaps humans just don't have enough interesting things to say in 3d that they can't already do in 2.
rubatuga 9y ago
Seeing as this is an appropriate thread to shit on VR, why does nobody seem to care about the extreme lack of Field of View on these devices? Most Oculus Rift models are around 90 degrees, while humans have more than 180, probably closer to 200. Last time I tried VR, the huge black bars stopped me from thinking it was immersive. If the optics are a hurdle to cross, why not at least light up the edges with something reminiscent of Ambilight?
- robert_tweed 9y ago
  People were prototyping ambilight type stuff back in the DK1 days. Trouble is, it doesn't improve immersion because objects disappearing out of view is still jarring. At least with a black edge you can imagine you're wearing a dive mask. If you want to know what developments are or aren't going to find their way into future VR, track down Michael Abrash's talks from Oculus Connect and other conferences. Realistically much of it is over a 5-10 year timescale, but a lot of research has been done in the last 5 years. Many things that seemed like good ideas in 2012 turned out to be dead ends, and some surprisingly simple things have been discovered (like a "virtual nose" reduces VR-sickness, which nobody anticipated).
- moron4hire 9y ago
  I don't know why you think nobody cares. It's pretty obvious it will get better as display tech improves, and there are already plenty of prototypes showing that is the case. We just don't think it's important enough of an issue to wait and stay out of the field until it gets better.
- jp555 9y ago
  Remember PocketPC smartphones? That's about where we are in the VR tech S-curve. They were horrible devices when compared to today's smartphones, just as the VR/AR 5 years from now will make today's tech seem. But we probably still needed the PocketPC to pave the way for the iPhone.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    It's worth remembering that we have had VR for well over 20 years now, in one form or another. 5 years seems optimistic given that.
tmaly 9y ago
It's still too early, I had that scene from Silicon Valley pop in my head about octopus, the animal in the ocean. Maybe building out education and training for the platform would be a better use of resources. I am still not comfortable with something that close to my eyes. I want something like a holodeck from Star Trek Next Generation.

133 points by Impossible 9y ago

Film makers don't want to use VR. It is very limiting. Films in 3d were never very good, mostly because of the limitations it placed on camera movements. VR will be the same. When you cannot control what the audience is looking at you must resort to tricks, repetitions and slow pacing to ensure that they see what they need to before you move on. The beauty of film, over theatre or other "3d" experiences, is that the director can grab the audience by the eyeballs, force them to see what he wants/needs them to see. That's why films can be so much faster and more direct than live entertainment. Take your favourite movie, or even one you just hated. Think of how it would be to "sit in" the action, tilting your head to look at anything and everything. You will miss all the details. You will miss the facial cues, the many non-verbal interactions between characters, because you were instead looking at the shiny thing in the corner. VR is for interactive experiences and theme park rides, not the carefully controlled storytelling of film. Think of GOTG, of sitting in the spare seat of a spaceship during a battle. Every time a character says something you will hear it, but miss seeing them actually say it because you didnt know to look at them in time. Think of all the wasted effort to animate Rocket's face if the audiance is never looking at him while he speaks.

drdeadringer 9y ago
Cinequest film festival in San Jose, CA this past year added VR to their offering of entertainment delivery. Granted it was a mix of VR films, VR scene immersions, and panel-like how-to discussions, but doing so was an interesting choice.
CharlesW 9y ago
> Film makers don't want to use VR. Creators often like to play with multiple mediums. I'd give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, and assume they understand that VR is a much different medium.
jonchang 9y ago
Well, VR films are a different medium, and I would expect that VR filmmakers would have to work harder to get the effects they want. This would necessarily result in relinquishing some amount of control over what people can see -- which is fine! How have video games like Half Life 2, which never takes control of the player's camera, find ways to get players to look in the right direction? There's a lot of techniques like using lighting and other cues, without beating the players' heads with loss-of-control cutscenes.
jamesrcole 9y ago
> Film makers don't want to use VR It may well be that those who do want to use VR for this won't be coming from the ranks of traditional film-making. I imagine a lot of them will be young, and will be jumping into this without a significant background in other media.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
Photographers don't want to use cinema. It is very limiting. When you cannot give the audience time to take an image in, you must resort to tricks, repetitions and pacing to ensure that they see what they need to in the frame. The beauty of photography, over cinema or other "motion" experiences, is that the photographer can grab the audience by the eyeballs, force them to see what he wants/needs them to see. That's why photographs can be so much faster and more direct than films.
- sandworm101 9y ago
  Film and photography are too similar for such comparison. Film is inclusive of photography. Everything that can be done in photography can also be done in film, especially with today's devices that display both as easily. VR is different. There are things in film that cannot be done in VR, as there are thing in VR that cannot be done in film. But in terms of storytelling, VR is to film as the "Choose your own adventure" is to novels. By allowing the viewer too much freedom to ignore one path for another, the artist's message becomes lost. To defend his message the artist will resort to trickery, extra efforts that detract from the work. A Disneyworld ride can be fun, but we don't expect anything near the depth we would from a film.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    I'm not sure that you're imagining the correct kind of VR content here. Imagine a film as set in VR where you are simply seeing the film from the first person perspective of one of the main characters, but it is otherwise still a film, i.e. you have no control over movement, pacing, plot, etc. It's just a film that you see from a different perspective, rather than something more akin to a videogame with watcher agency which you seem to be implying. I think this format has a decent chance of taking off. Hell, it's already taking off in VR porn.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    You can't get closer to cinema. You can't take your time.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
beeandapenguin 9y ago
The Tribeca Film Festival hosted a VR immersive this year. There was a showcase of several creative VR films and experiences. I'd say filmmakers are diving head first into VR. The descriptions of the films sound fascinating. https://tribecafilm.com/immersive https://tribecafilm.com/immersive
dylan604 9y ago
"Film makers don't want to use VR. It is very limiting." To an extent, I'd agree as I myself miss the ability to use different lenses, set the framing, etc as storytelling devices. However, it is a matter of knowing the limitations of the medium, and not forcing "traditional" film making techniques into the new medium. Only frustration will result. However, this format is new and evolving. Part of the idea is to give the viewer control over everything. Forcing a traditional linear story line is going against the grain of VR. More and more projects are coming out with a "choose your own adventure" concept. Now that the tech is getting better, the tools content producers have to use will allow for more interactive content to be made. If the tech survives long enough to get there.
agar 9y ago
I heard an interesting interview with a filmmaker who was adamantly opposed to the terms "VR filmmaking" and "VR cinematography" - and not for the reasons you would expect. To him, cinematography is an art and a science. Nearly 100 years of experience has gone into understanding lighting, scene composition, set design, focus, directorial decisions, blocking, framing, etc. VR throws all of that knowledge out the window. As you say, camera motion is constrained. Cues change. Scene design is completely different. There's no quick cut, no soft focus, no depth of field. It is as different a set of skills as photography and painting. But, unlike your pessimistic view of the future, he was (verbally) jumping out of his seat in excitement at the new challenges, and new opportunities this completely new medium could provide for storytellers. Sure, VR storytelling is at the "Trip to the Moon" phase of refinement but it sure won't stay there. Don't compare current film to future VR. Future VR stories may (will?) be something completely unique unto themselves.
- sandworm101 9y ago
  My view of the future is only pessimistic if one assumes that VR is the future. Im pessimistic of the medium, not the future of film or storytelling. I didnt support the "4d" craze either. That too came to nothing and film survived.
- thenomad 9y ago
  I'm a filmmaker who moved into developing VR experiences, and I couldn't agree more. Film and VR are vastly different media.
phantom_package 9y ago
By definition, the people that make interesting cinematic experiences in VR won't be "film makers". I don't know if we've created a job title for them yet. It's a completely different medium, with completely different advantages, drawbacks, and considerations. Applying film techniques in a virtual environment is not the right approach, as your examples demonstrate. The really compelling experiences in VR will embrace the constraints you mentioned, not try to emulate a medium in which they didn't exist. I went to New York a few months ago and saw a play called Sleep No More. It takes place across 5 floors of a warehouse, converted into an incredibly immersive series of sets. It's loosely-based on Hamlet, with multiple storylines playing out simultaneously in different parts of the hotel/hospital/graveyard/theatre. The audience wears fawkes-esque masks and is not allowed to speak, nor are they acknowledged by the actors in any way. You can wander anywhere you like, follow any actors you find interesting, rummage through drawers, read books you find lying around, etc. You really do feel like a ghost, and being able to move around the actors (or even leave the room, if you feel like it), is incredibly fun and interesting. It certainly didn't feel like a limitation. So maybe VR has more to learn from theatre (and specifically interactive theatre) than film? Food for thought.
- mch82 9y ago
  Yes! Theater and sports
- thenomad 9y ago
  Sleep No More is one of my usual touchstones when talking about narrative in VR. (Speaking as a VR dev here.) In general, narrative in VR has to be approached VERY differently to film. It's not just that the viewpoint's moving or that it's 360 degrees, it's also that the viewpoint has its own agency within the environment. Of all the comparisons I've come up with, actually, pen-and-paper roleplaying games seem to be the most useful ones when discussing how to fit narrative into a VR context. There's a commonality of simulated world and tension between experience and narrative there that doesn't really exist anywhere else.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Findeton 9y ago
I do not agree with this.
robert_tweed 9y ago
In addition to the other replies, IMO, VR film-making isn't even a thing yet. 360 videos are not VR. Right now, VR exists as a medium in the form of games and other sims using real-time rendering. Film-making will require light-field cameras, which don't yet exist in any practical sense. However, progress is being made: https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/11/lytro-cinema-is-giving-filmmakers-400-gigabytes-per-second-of-creative-freedom/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/11/lytro-cinema-is-giving-fil... As for how it would work as a medium, I would compare storytelling in games with cut-scenes to something like Skyrim. One is about showing the story to a passive viewer, the other is about immersion in the story. They aren't directly comparable. Ulimately though, I think even light-field photograhy will be relatively short lived. The future will be simulated reality: essentially current game engines with much better rendering (possibly real-time path-tracing like Octane/Brigade). The reason being, you can film an actor, but unless you transfer that performance into a simulation, it cannot react to a nearby human. Another thing that will most likely emerge to address similar problems from a different angle is "virtual theatre" this already exists to a limited extent in the form of multiplayer games. Whether these will most resemble tradition artforms, or most resemble current-gen games remains to be seen. However, even games are starting to come of age as an artform and we're seeing more games that are closer to traditional stories (without relying on cutscenes), or interactive art (e.g., Journey). Also two of the most popular games of all-time, The Sims and Minecraft[1], are technically not even games. These distinctions are going to become more and more obvious in VR, and new categories will emerge as the audience moves away from traditional gamers and other early adopters, into the mainstream. [1] Only applies to Minecraft in sandbox mode.

tostitos1979 9y ago

One factor that greatly limits my use of VR is that it is so uncomfortable with glasses on. I've seen people propose hacks and kickstarter projects. I don't understand why the people leading VR are turning a blind eye to the problem (no pun intended).

LiweiZ 9y ago
They just want to meet a subgroup's needs first. When there is a traction, they can move forward from there. But it seems the subgroup did not buy in after serval attempts.
badlucklottery 9y ago
I've had issues with glasses + Occulus but the Vive is a decent bit more roomy in there and it hasn't been an issue. Getting the headset on and off can still be a chore because I need to loosen the straps first. You can also get prescription lens inserts but I think that's overkill for most people.
- TwoBit 9y ago
  You can just cut the foam on the sides which inhibit the arms on each side. Put the foam back if you want to restore it.
farnsworth 9y ago
Glasses have been "cool again" for the past few years. I don't know that we're overdue for another fashion cycle, but could VR be one thing that pushes them out again? I usually wear glasses, contacts some days, but if I know I'm going to be playing with a VR headset, I'll usually wear contacts that day.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  Depending on what's wrong with your eyes you don't have a choice.
  - 9y ago

CharlesW 9y ago

This is smart, and great news for creators. As good as Facebook's own studio may have been, having to compete with Facebook for attention in a nascent medium is a huge problem.

unclebucknasty 9y ago
But, then, developers have to trust Facebook as the owner of the platform. That's not always been a good bet. Albeit, this is a different model that I'm not 100% sure about, but hope the investment/development agreements provide good coverage for developers.
- CharlesW 9y ago
  > But, then, developers have to trust Facebook as the owner of the platform. That's not always been a good bet. For sure, but that would've also been an issue in the scenario where Facebook was also competing with you as a content developer. At least this way, small developers have a chance to establish themselves before Big Media starts taking VR seriously.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    Yeah, just feels a little more transparent when you know you're competing with them. This deal where Facebook is like "hey, we're out of this game" seems like a setup. But, that's coming from someone who built on F8 years ago and witnessed their treatment of developers first-hand. And, we've all seen what they've done to some popular apps on their platform. As well, their shameless capacity to copy successful apps (e.g. SnapChat) is just unnerving when you're considering partnering on their platform. I also fell for their "Hey, come build a free business page on FB and drive your users to us; in return we'll make it easier for our users to find you". Sounded great, until they started charging you to reach your own audience after undertaking so much effort to corral them on Facebook. All together, the sweeter they make the deal sound, the more wary I become.

lightyrs 9y ago

It’s a VR play. That’s the frothiest space in the Valley right now. Nobody understands it but everyone wants in. Any idiot could walk into a fucking room, utter the letters ‘v’ and ‘r’, and VC’s would hurl bricks of cash at them. By the time they find out it’s vaporware, it’s too late. I’ve got to get into this. — Erlich Bachman

aub3bhat 9y ago
I think there should be a version for AI too. It’s an AI play. That’s the frothiest space in the Valley right now. Nobody understands it but everyone wants in. Any idiot could walk into a fucking room, utter the letters ‘A’ and ‘I’, and VC’s would hurl bricks of cash at them. By the time they find out it’s just off the shelf models passed around as secret tech for next Deep Mind, it’s too late. I’ve got to get into this.
- crusso 9y ago
  IOT
  - jhpankow 9y ago
    Software Defined
    - elvirs 9y ago
      anybody remembers 'semantic search'?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - taneq 9y ago
        It's now just "search". At least, Google's search is getting very good at "do what I mean". Occasionally it's a complete swing-and-a-miss but often it's spookily accurate.

wavefunction 9y ago

If facebook had real vision they'd focus on the Story Studio and forget the 'news/live video' briar-patch they're confidently striding into. Build up the first early VR IP properties by making them widely available so they're established as a cultural bedrock like Disney has been with perpetual Mickey Mouse protection and the acquisition of a significant portion of your childhood (Marvel,Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.) and you've built something that will last for at least a few generations and give your succeeding executives breathing room to maneuver. Or hire a bunch of labor to watch unrestricted widecast videos (I'm hoping they're just reinforcing ml analysis of videos in the short term, please?)

jamesrom 9y ago

Measured business decision. Content producers are probably scared that Facebook is in the content business while also building the headsets. Content producers have every right to be wary.

jamesjyu 9y ago

This makes a ton of sense. Oculus's biggest leverage is in improving the platform, not creating content. If anything, that money would be better spent on directly funding other studios.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

oculusthrift 9y ago

as someone who actually owns an oculus, i think this is bad news. the biggest problem right now is the lack of quality content. the best content ive seen has come from Facebook so this is sad.

ggggtez 9y ago
Wasnt that the reason 3d TV failed as well? Perhaps humans just don't have enough interesting things to say in 3d that they can't already do in 2.

rubatuga 9y ago

Seeing as this is an appropriate thread to shit on VR, why does nobody seem to care about the extreme lack of Field of View on these devices? Most Oculus Rift models are around 90 degrees, while humans have more than 180, probably closer to 200. Last time I tried VR, the huge black bars stopped me from thinking it was immersive. If the optics are a hurdle to cross, why not at least light up the edges with something reminiscent of Ambilight?

robert_tweed 9y ago
People were prototyping ambilight type stuff back in the DK1 days. Trouble is, it doesn't improve immersion because objects disappearing out of view is still jarring. At least with a black edge you can imagine you're wearing a dive mask. If you want to know what developments are or aren't going to find their way into future VR, track down Michael Abrash's talks from Oculus Connect and other conferences. Realistically much of it is over a 5-10 year timescale, but a lot of research has been done in the last 5 years. Many things that seemed like good ideas in 2012 turned out to be dead ends, and some surprisingly simple things have been discovered (like a "virtual nose" reduces VR-sickness, which nobody anticipated).
moron4hire 9y ago
I don't know why you think nobody cares. It's pretty obvious it will get better as display tech improves, and there are already plenty of prototypes showing that is the case. We just don't think it's important enough of an issue to wait and stay out of the field until it gets better.
jp555 9y ago
Remember PocketPC smartphones? That's about where we are in the VR tech S-curve. They were horrible devices when compared to today's smartphones, just as the VR/AR 5 years from now will make today's tech seem. But we probably still needed the PocketPC to pave the way for the iPhone.
- falcolas 9y ago
  It's worth remembering that we have had VR for well over 20 years now, in one form or another. 5 years seems optimistic given that.

tmaly 9y ago

It's still too early, I had that scene from Silicon Valley pop in my head about octopus, the animal in the ocean. Maybe building out education and training for the platform would be a better use of resources. I am still not comfortable with something that close to my eyes. I want something like a holodeck from Star Trek Next Generation.