4 ms·

So how does Hacker News think that Twitch and YouTube Gaming are going to work with VR. Seeing the gamer and their reactions is part of the appeal of Twitch, bu

So how does Hacker News think that Twitch and YouTube Gaming are going to work with VR. Seeing the gamer and their reactions is part of the appeal of Twitch, but that changes with VR where you can't see someone's eyes. Amazon (who paid nearly $1 billion for Twitch) and Google really believe there is a real future watching people play games, but one real challenge seems to be the VR integration.

dm2 11y ago
I don't think that streaming to YouTube is as easy as direct streaming to Twitch, maybe that's one of the areas they are focusing on. Streamers will make sacrifices for their audience. If the technology isn't available to stream VR well then they won't do it. What would be really cool is a game that supports streaming to YouTube 360, where it records a view similar to what the Jump camera rig does in real life.
GauntletWizard 11y ago
How do you think VR will change streaming? The developer versions of oculus are already just an oddly rendered 1080p video stream; You can play back a recorded oculus video stream to the glasses, and it's a little weird because you're not moving your head as the perspective changes, but not actually that bad. If you're looking for something more interactive, replay videos already exist for a wide variety of games, with the ability to change perspectives. Simply mapping the full system state to a local engine for rendering will allow you to view any perspective of the VR game character. You move your head, the perspective changes, but the 'body' of your character is still in the streamer's control.
Joona 11y ago
I don't think seeing someones _eyes_ matters that much. Reactions are much more than that. One of the most popular streamers (Lirik) does not use a camera at all, so all you get is his voice and the gameplay. VR itself is a bit different though, as not everyone will have Rift/etc, so either you are streaming to a very limited audience, or there has to be a way of capturing the footage before it's transformed, and even then, it's just one eye, so the viewers are missing stuff.
yohui 11y ago
The other replies are missing barney54's point: that streamers wearing VR goggles will have their faces obscured. Personally, I'm not sure this will be a big deal, since the VR content itself should be more interesting. And if you care, the lower half of the face will still be visible anyway.
- w-ll 11y ago
  A LOT of facial expression is given off from our eyes and surrounding muscles. What might be cool tho, is being able to stream the complete VR sphere so the viewers could look behind and around and just be within the streamers control.
  - Navarr 11y ago
    YouTube already has 360 degree video. How much bandwidth could 360degree streaming possibly take?
    - skykooler 11y ago
      4 times the bandwidth of regular streaming I would guess - the equivalent of one stream in each direction.
      - KnightHawk3 11y ago
        If we are talking about the 360 video rig announced a bit back, its more like 8 since we don't have 180 degree FOV cameras.
    - w-ll 11y ago
      Youtube has mono 360 videos and they are build ahead of time, true stream 360 is not out of reach but gonna take a lot more bandwidth.
shock-value 11y ago
VR at present is of no immediate concern, as it's simply barely available yet, and games aren't yet robustly supporting it. But even going forward I'd posit that it'll only occupy a (small) niche. Consoles are going to have trouble supporting it -- not due to their never being "powerful enough" (as consoles will of course get more powerful over successive generations) but rather simply due to the power disparity needed to render a game normally vs VR. Developers aren't going to want to release a game at vastly lower detail settings for VR than for general TV-based consumption (and they won't forgo the TV-based audience, except perhaps for niche lower-budget VR-only titles). Moreover, some of the most popularly streamed titles (anything not first person -- League of Legends, Hearthstone, etc.) are simply not suitable for VR.
- chrischen 11y ago
  When they stream VR, everyone will be watching it from their own VR headsets. Think of horror games done this way.
- TillE 11y ago
  People forget that many genres of games will never make it to VR in any meaningful way. Even in a far-future holodeck scenario, strategy games don't change a whole lot. But it's true that VR is an immersive experience which I can't vicariously participate in the same way I can watch someone playing Hearthstone now. In many ways VR games are likely to remain largely unsuitable for streaming.
  - zyxley 11y ago
    > Even in a far-future holodeck scenario, strategy games don't change a whole lot. I dunno, the classic Civilization style could benefit quite a bit from it. Imagine having a virtual giant globe that you can arbitrarily turn and zoom as the main interface. Even the limited number of platformers with a third-person view on the Oculus Rift hardware are quite successful, since the false depth perception helps with fine control.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

dm2 11y ago

I don't think that streaming to YouTube is as easy as direct streaming to Twitch, maybe that's one of the areas they are focusing on. Streamers will make sacrifices for their audience. If the technology isn't available to stream VR well then they won't do it. What would be really cool is a game that supports streaming to YouTube 360, where it records a view similar to what the Jump camera rig does in real life.

GauntletWizard 11y ago

How do you think VR will change streaming? The developer versions of oculus are already just an oddly rendered 1080p video stream; You can play back a recorded oculus video stream to the glasses, and it's a little weird because you're not moving your head as the perspective changes, but not actually that bad. If you're looking for something more interactive, replay videos already exist for a wide variety of games, with the ability to change perspectives. Simply mapping the full system state to a local engine for rendering will allow you to view any perspective of the VR game character. You move your head, the perspective changes, but the 'body' of your character is still in the streamer's control.

Joona 11y ago

I don't think seeing someones _eyes_ matters that much. Reactions are much more than that. One of the most popular streamers (Lirik) does not use a camera at all, so all you get is his voice and the gameplay. VR itself is a bit different though, as not everyone will have Rift/etc, so either you are streaming to a very limited audience, or there has to be a way of capturing the footage before it's transformed, and even then, it's just one eye, so the viewers are missing stuff.

yohui 11y ago

The other replies are missing barney54's point: that streamers wearing VR goggles will have their faces obscured. Personally, I'm not sure this will be a big deal, since the VR content itself should be more interesting. And if you care, the lower half of the face will still be visible anyway.

w-ll 11y ago
A LOT of facial expression is given off from our eyes and surrounding muscles. What might be cool tho, is being able to stream the complete VR sphere so the viewers could look behind and around and just be within the streamers control.
- Navarr 11y ago
  YouTube already has 360 degree video. How much bandwidth could 360degree streaming possibly take?
  - skykooler 11y ago
    4 times the bandwidth of regular streaming I would guess - the equivalent of one stream in each direction.
    - KnightHawk3 11y ago
      If we are talking about the 360 video rig announced a bit back, its more like 8 since we don't have 180 degree FOV cameras.
  - w-ll 11y ago
    Youtube has mono 360 videos and they are build ahead of time, true stream 360 is not out of reach but gonna take a lot more bandwidth.

shock-value 11y ago

VR at present is of no immediate concern, as it's simply barely available yet, and games aren't yet robustly supporting it. But even going forward I'd posit that it'll only occupy a (small) niche. Consoles are going to have trouble supporting it -- not due to their never being "powerful enough" (as consoles will of course get more powerful over successive generations) but rather simply due to the power disparity needed to render a game normally vs VR. Developers aren't going to want to release a game at vastly lower detail settings for VR than for general TV-based consumption (and they won't forgo the TV-based audience, except perhaps for niche lower-budget VR-only titles). Moreover, some of the most popularly streamed titles (anything not first person -- League of Legends, Hearthstone, etc.) are simply not suitable for VR.

chrischen 11y ago
When they stream VR, everyone will be watching it from their own VR headsets. Think of horror games done this way.
TillE 11y ago
People forget that many genres of games will never make it to VR in any meaningful way. Even in a far-future holodeck scenario, strategy games don't change a whole lot. But it's true that VR is an immersive experience which I can't vicariously participate in the same way I can watch someone playing Hearthstone now. In many ways VR games are likely to remain largely unsuitable for streaming.
- zyxley 11y ago
  > Even in a far-future holodeck scenario, strategy games don't change a whole lot. I dunno, the classic Civilization style could benefit quite a bit from it. Imagine having a virtual giant globe that you can arbitrarily turn and zoom as the main interface. Even the limited number of platformers with a third-person view on the Oculus Rift hardware are quite successful, since the false depth perception helps with fine control.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]