5 ms·

Until Facebook commits to launching a non-mobile consumer version, then the DK2 and CV1 don't matter, except as dev milestones. I'm not convinced that Facebook

Until Facebook commits to launching a non-mobile consumer version, then the DK2 and CV1 don't matter, except as dev milestones. I'm not convinced that Facebook is willing to settle for developing a "mere" gaming machine, which is what DK2/CV1 are. They seem to want to make it something more. And that could backfire badly, unless they deliver some very compelling experience.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
Huh? Your post makes no sense. CV1 literally means "consumer version 1".
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Has Facebook said their first shipping product will be a gaming machine? If not, then we should probably take that name with a grain of salt.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    Again, huh? DK2/CV1 is not "a gaming machine". It's just a VR headset you plug into your desktop or laptop. It can then be used for games and non-games as they user pleases. It will not, and has never intended to, be used solely for games. Games are a great use case but so are panoramic images and movies.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Why are you being so uncharitable with your responses? All of that is exceedingly obvious. But you know what else is obvious? A product needs to be used for something. That "something" was originally intended to be games, and that's the reason the Oculus fundraiser was so wildly successful. You can go watch the Kickstarter video right now, and it will bear that out. It's simply crazy how quickly history is apparently rewritten. Now, go ahead and name some non-gaming uses of CV1. I bet you can't come up with anything compelling, like something that an average person might want to spend hundreds of dollars to get. It sounds like you're handwaving that away as not a big deal. But if it isn't intended solely for games, then what is it intended for? What will people do with it? Movies are a social experience, and anyone who has ever cuddled while watching a love story will attest. Nobody in that situation will put on a cyborg headset to watch the movie. That's both a gimmick and a dangerous distraction from delivering on Oculus's real potential. Hilariously, the Oculus might be the ultimate way to watch porn. That's one of the few non-gaming activities I could imagine someone being willing to drop $hundreds for. But if it's a glorified porn box, then that's an unfortunate outcome compared to what it could have been: a revitalization of the gaming industry at large.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        Non-gaming applications: the metaverse, medical imaging, architectural visualization, telepresence/3D video conferencing, 3D photography, FPV piloting of RC aircraft, ...
      - convulsive 12y ago
        >Now, go ahead and name some non-gaming uses of CV1. I bet you can't come up with anything compelling False. I own a DK2, which I regularly show to other non-gamers. It always blows their mind and they immediately start considering possible applications in their fields (film, medicine, architecture, dataviz, installation art, etc). I've even gotten people to introduce it to their coworkers and bosses to consider using it in some capacity.
      - lhl 12y ago
        You're getting pushback (and downvotes) because your posts have been needlessly broad and argumentative, and totally baseless/somewhat bewildering for anyone that's been paying much attention to what Oculus has been up to. Most of Oculus' devrel is gaming oriented, the product roadmap hasn't changed at all. In the meantime, there's been a steady stream of devkits and prototype demos that show a pretty clear progression, again, unchanged for years. Oculus continues to function as an independent subsidiary and has grown by leaps and bounds this year. It's also obvious that you haven't used any of the Oculus headsets, but on the off-chance that you're willing to accept that you are coming from a position of ignorance, I can answer all the questions you've posed (I'm a early Kickstarter backer and have/have used the DK1, DK2, Gear VR and the Crescent Bay (CV1-quality) prototype, and have been closely following both the dev forums and /r/oculus for the past couple years.) * Yes, the DK1 Kickstarter was "wildly successful," selling over 6,000[1] units. Oculus would go on to produce somewhere around 60,000 DK1 units. Those numbers aren't anything to sneeze at - it's probably the most successful production run of VR headsets in history, however it will be dwarfed by the future/potential market by several magnitudes. Gaming is a logical initial target because you have a niche of users that already have powerful 3D graphics rigs (and that are willing to regularly pony up hundreds or thousands of dollars for their hobby) as well as the most robust community of developers w/ the skillset (and motivation) for developing real-time 3D interactive experiences. From the earliest interviews/discussions, there's been recognition that gaming is a foothold, but that VR's potential is far wider reaching - in this case, you're the one projecting a historical rewrite. Ask anyone on MTBS3D, or from the initial KS backers and you'll hear the same things. Yes, there are some fantastic gaming experiences to be had. Elite, Darknet, Vox Machinae, etc are awesome - they are out/will be out when CV1 rolls around (along with tons of other indie and AAA titles). However, even as a gamer, having experienced some of what other things that VR can do, I'm pretty sure that gaming, certainly core gaming, will be a much smaller subset of usage than you probably imagine: 1) Having run through the Crescent Bay "experience" demos, I'm reasonably sure that a large number of geeks/tech/AV afficionados with disposable income would drop ($1000-1500 [cost of a headset and sufficiently powerful PC]) simply to have those experiences available. They're that good. Demoing the DK2 to people, a fair amount of them don't care for shooting things, but they're blown away by experiential demos like Titans of Space or Sensa Peso. 2) Panoramic (and pano-stereoscopic) photos and videos are extremely compelling in VR. Even just for legacy media consumption, it will probably be worthwhile to plunk down a couple hundred dollars for people who do much traveling to have a virtual cinema experience. Watching 2D/3D movies in a virtual theater is surprisingly good, certainly better than a seat-back screen on a plane, but the 3D panoramic stuff is on another level. There's a reason companies like JauntVR are getting $30M in funding. I don't know why you'd be so dismissive of it. 2a) This also ignores a whole the whole other subset of VR telepresence - in the same way that Skype and Facetime have changed things, how do you think it'll change things when Grandma can virtually experience a child's birthday party from across the country? There are a number of virtual experiences that become a lot more appealing with increased immersion. 3) My personal fav use case, and IMO one that will probably eventually (in the next 5 years) sell more headsets than gaming will be productivity-related usage. Once resolutions hit 4-8K (CV2-CV3), you will have the equivalent arc-resolution of traditional HD screens, but you know, anywhere you look. If you can't connect the dots there, I won't bother. 4) Built-in eye tracking will add expression tracking. VR will probably be a lot more social than you think, especially once you experience how convincingly present avatars are in VR (one of the most memorable Crescent Bay demos is a personal encounter with a small ET-like alien that tracks your movement and gazes back at you - it's uncanny). These applications barely scratch the surface - just about any potential niche/market will use VR in the same way that they've adopted "mobile" or "PCs." Gaming will be changed by VR, yes, but due to the economics of modern AAA game-making, the large publishers will only commit to creating VR games once the user-base is in the millions[2]. Even then, traditional video-game mechanics (even basic things like locomotion, character/object interaction, UIs) simply don't translate directly into VR. Either way, the broader the push, the better for gaming it'd be, so your expectations/assumption of a game industry revitalization wouldn't hold in your scenario anyway. If you've seen the surge in mobile/indie gaming, I'd say the game industry revitalization has been doing just fine and will happen on VR (as a new medium) regardless as long as the dev environment stays open, which it has. I know it's a common thing to see here on HN, but I honestly wonder when people have such strong opinions and try to make such emphatic arguments based on assumptions that seem so off-base, and honestly, rather close-minded/unimaginitive. [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-... [2] http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/20/gdc-1-million-vr-sales-needed-before-ubisoft-invests http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/20/gdc-1-million-vr-sale...

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Huh? Your post makes no sense. CV1 literally means "consumer version 1".

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Has Facebook said their first shipping product will be a gaming machine? If not, then we should probably take that name with a grain of salt.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  Again, huh? DK2/CV1 is not "a gaming machine". It's just a VR headset you plug into your desktop or laptop. It can then be used for games and non-games as they user pleases. It will not, and has never intended to, be used solely for games. Games are a great use case but so are panoramic images and movies.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Why are you being so uncharitable with your responses? All of that is exceedingly obvious. But you know what else is obvious? A product needs to be used for something. That "something" was originally intended to be games, and that's the reason the Oculus fundraiser was so wildly successful. You can go watch the Kickstarter video right now, and it will bear that out. It's simply crazy how quickly history is apparently rewritten. Now, go ahead and name some non-gaming uses of CV1. I bet you can't come up with anything compelling, like something that an average person might want to spend hundreds of dollars to get. It sounds like you're handwaving that away as not a big deal. But if it isn't intended solely for games, then what is it intended for? What will people do with it? Movies are a social experience, and anyone who has ever cuddled while watching a love story will attest. Nobody in that situation will put on a cyborg headset to watch the movie. That's both a gimmick and a dangerous distraction from delivering on Oculus's real potential. Hilariously, the Oculus might be the ultimate way to watch porn. That's one of the few non-gaming activities I could imagine someone being willing to drop $hundreds for. But if it's a glorified porn box, then that's an unfortunate outcome compared to what it could have been: a revitalization of the gaming industry at large.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Non-gaming applications: the metaverse, medical imaging, architectural visualization, telepresence/3D video conferencing, 3D photography, FPV piloting of RC aircraft, ...
    - convulsive 12y ago
      >Now, go ahead and name some non-gaming uses of CV1. I bet you can't come up with anything compelling False. I own a DK2, which I regularly show to other non-gamers. It always blows their mind and they immediately start considering possible applications in their fields (film, medicine, architecture, dataviz, installation art, etc). I've even gotten people to introduce it to their coworkers and bosses to consider using it in some capacity.
    - lhl 12y ago
      You're getting pushback (and downvotes) because your posts have been needlessly broad and argumentative, and totally baseless/somewhat bewildering for anyone that's been paying much attention to what Oculus has been up to. Most of Oculus' devrel is gaming oriented, the product roadmap hasn't changed at all. In the meantime, there's been a steady stream of devkits and prototype demos that show a pretty clear progression, again, unchanged for years. Oculus continues to function as an independent subsidiary and has grown by leaps and bounds this year. It's also obvious that you haven't used any of the Oculus headsets, but on the off-chance that you're willing to accept that you are coming from a position of ignorance, I can answer all the questions you've posed (I'm a early Kickstarter backer and have/have used the DK1, DK2, Gear VR and the Crescent Bay (CV1-quality) prototype, and have been closely following both the dev forums and /r/oculus for the past couple years.) * Yes, the DK1 Kickstarter was "wildly successful," selling over 6,000[1] units. Oculus would go on to produce somewhere around 60,000 DK1 units. Those numbers aren't anything to sneeze at - it's probably the most successful production run of VR headsets in history, however it will be dwarfed by the future/potential market by several magnitudes. Gaming is a logical initial target because you have a niche of users that already have powerful 3D graphics rigs (and that are willing to regularly pony up hundreds or thousands of dollars for their hobby) as well as the most robust community of developers w/ the skillset (and motivation) for developing real-time 3D interactive experiences. From the earliest interviews/discussions, there's been recognition that gaming is a foothold, but that VR's potential is far wider reaching - in this case, you're the one projecting a historical rewrite. Ask anyone on MTBS3D, or from the initial KS backers and you'll hear the same things. Yes, there are some fantastic gaming experiences to be had. Elite, Darknet, Vox Machinae, etc are awesome - they are out/will be out when CV1 rolls around (along with tons of other indie and AAA titles). However, even as a gamer, having experienced some of what other things that VR can do, I'm pretty sure that gaming, certainly core gaming, will be a much smaller subset of usage than you probably imagine: 1) Having run through the Crescent Bay "experience" demos, I'm reasonably sure that a large number of geeks/tech/AV afficionados with disposable income would drop ($1000-1500 [cost of a headset and sufficiently powerful PC]) simply to have those experiences available. They're that good. Demoing the DK2 to people, a fair amount of them don't care for shooting things, but they're blown away by experiential demos like Titans of Space or Sensa Peso. 2) Panoramic (and pano-stereoscopic) photos and videos are extremely compelling in VR. Even just for legacy media consumption, it will probably be worthwhile to plunk down a couple hundred dollars for people who do much traveling to have a virtual cinema experience. Watching 2D/3D movies in a virtual theater is surprisingly good, certainly better than a seat-back screen on a plane, but the 3D panoramic stuff is on another level. There's a reason companies like JauntVR are getting $30M in funding. I don't know why you'd be so dismissive of it. 2a) This also ignores a whole the whole other subset of VR telepresence - in the same way that Skype and Facetime have changed things, how do you think it'll change things when Grandma can virtually experience a child's birthday party from across the country? There are a number of virtual experiences that become a lot more appealing with increased immersion. 3) My personal fav use case, and IMO one that will probably eventually (in the next 5 years) sell more headsets than gaming will be productivity-related usage. Once resolutions hit 4-8K (CV2-CV3), you will have the equivalent arc-resolution of traditional HD screens, but you know, anywhere you look. If you can't connect the dots there, I won't bother. 4) Built-in eye tracking will add expression tracking. VR will probably be a lot more social than you think, especially once you experience how convincingly present avatars are in VR (one of the most memorable Crescent Bay demos is a personal encounter with a small ET-like alien that tracks your movement and gazes back at you - it's uncanny). These applications barely scratch the surface - just about any potential niche/market will use VR in the same way that they've adopted "mobile" or "PCs." Gaming will be changed by VR, yes, but due to the economics of modern AAA game-making, the large publishers will only commit to creating VR games once the user-base is in the millions[2]. Even then, traditional video-game mechanics (even basic things like locomotion, character/object interaction, UIs) simply don't translate directly into VR. Either way, the broader the push, the better for gaming it'd be, so your expectations/assumption of a game industry revitalization wouldn't hold in your scenario anyway. If you've seen the surge in mobile/indie gaming, I'd say the game industry revitalization has been doing just fine and will happen on VR (as a new medium) regardless as long as the dev environment stays open, which it has. I know it's a common thing to see here on HN, but I honestly wonder when people have such strong opinions and try to make such emphatic arguments based on assumptions that seem so off-base, and honestly, rather close-minded/unimaginitive. [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-... [2] http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/20/gdc-1-million-vr-sales-needed-before-ubisoft-invests http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/20/gdc-1-million-vr-sale...