Valve Believes Consumer-Ready VR Tech is Two Years Away

[Alex Co]

Valve Believes Consumer-Ready VR Tech is Two Years Away

Valve thinks mainstream consumer VR tech is two years away and confirms it doesn't have any plans to developer its own VR hardware.

While virtual reality tech Oculus Rift has been making waves since it was first announced, Valve thinks mainstream consumer versions of the hardware won't be ready until 2015. This was revealed by the company at the developer-only Steam Dev Days conference. According to conference attendee Dave Oshry, Valve pegs that by 2015, it will be feasible for VR tech to feature: 20 ms motion-to-last latency, 3 ms pixel persistence, 95 Hz refresh rate, 1K x 1K resolution per eye, offer high-quality and well-calibrated optics, and millimeter-accurate tracking.

Also from the conference, Valve confirms that it has no plans to develop its own VR hardware, but mentions it will work with Oculus "to drive PC VR foward," since it's "the obvious candidate." As for VR development, Valve claims "the PC will be the hotbed for VR," and that Linux, Windows PC and Mac will be the "VR epicenter."

In related VR news, Valve has read our hands-on impression of the device [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131303-Valve-Launches-SteamVR-Beta-for-Oculus-Rift-Before-Steam-Dev-Days] at this year's CES.

Do you agree with Valve that VR for consumers is two years away or will it take even longer than that?

Source: Polygon [https://twitter.com/DaveOshry/status/423960702106083328]

Permalink

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I reckon less. They have been making considerable leaps and bounds in the technology since it's announcement. The "slow" part will be the game developers making product for it. Nevertheless, February 2015 is my prediction for a consumer level unit.

 

[lancar]

They may be right. However, I reckon it'll take a bit longer for the unit to become affordable for anyone apart from the hardcore enthusiast. It might seem like us PC gamers have loads and loads of money, but we generally don't. We just prioritize differently to get the most bang for our gaming bucks, and getting a VR unit, while cool, is probably not high on the agenda until there's either a lot of games for it, or it's cheap to get.

 

[Alterego-X]

They may be right. However, I reckon it'll take a bit longer for the unit to become affordable for anyone apart from the hardcore enthusiast.

Hardcore enthusiasts will be the LAST to go along with VR, as many of them are in love specifically with the trappings of their traditional genres. You can't even properly play an older FPS ported to VR, (Too much speed, badly portrayed scales that only look good on a monitor, let alone an RPG with lots of UI and keyboard usage.

Ordinary people will see the premise of VR as "How much would you pay to be immersed inside virtual worlds?" and their followup question will be "Do I HAVE TO shoot those nice people over there, or can I just walk among them and look at the pretty scenery?"

Hardcores will see it as "How much would you pay for this PC peripheral with a 3D effect and head tracking?" And their followup question will be "how will it help me to suck less at Dark Souls 2?"

 

[Smooth Operator]

That is all down to the devs sadly, if the engine itself wasn't set up for the extra input and UI adjusted for it then you will just have a real shit emulation.

And I would like to remind everyone we are still in a time where a expecting games to work properly with both gamepads and keyboards is practically insanity, I dare not even mention such futuristic features as a full range of options on that.

 

[Slash2x]

It is 2014. So 1 year away.

The real issue is not the tech it is the support for the tech. Even if it was released today and everyone purchased one the game support would be little to none. We just have to wait on the devs to integrate the tech into the software.

 

[Vivi22]

It is 2014. So 1 year away.

2015 will end just barely under two years from now.

 

[Slash2x]

It is 2014. So 1 year away.

2015 will end just barely under two years from now.

So under 2 years... What number is under 2?......

Also like most things the 2015 version would be released at the end of 2014.

And there is also this from the developer...

[link]http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/09/the-oculus-rift-crystal-cove-prototype-is-2014s-best-of-c/[/link]

"The biggest challenge for Oculus is getting the Rift in the hands of consumers, and the company remains quiet about a release date, with Mitchell saying only that "2014 is going to be a big year for VR." It already is, now that Oculus has started the year as the winner of the official Best of CES Award for 2014"

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Cant see it really. Even then it will be to expensive and thus developers wont bother with it so it would be another worthless gadget in the living room. But hey, who knows.

 

[VanQ]

I can't wait to modify and program my Oculus Rift to respond and power on to the voice command "Link Start."

Yes, I know I'm a gigantic weeaboo.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

If gaming gets to the point where I have to wear a screen on my head like in that picture, I think I might be done. I can't see that being comfortable. Probably wouldn't be good for your eyes either.

 

[ron1n]

It will definitely start off slow, but I think people need to look further out from just games though and appreciate all the applications the tech could have.

I could definitely see say the U.S military using the tech in combination with training simulations. In fact simulations of any kind will benefit.

Heck, what about film and television? If they're willing to try and flog 3D to sell more tickets, who's to say they won't look at VR as another draw card?

Early days of course and I think 2015 is a bit ambitious. Even if it's available, will take a long time for media to fully take advantage and support it.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Sounds to me like Valve don't want to take the chance to develop their own VR tech, they've already tried with their own SM so I don't see why they don't just take another dip in the pool with the money they have.

Also VR tech at this rate will only be available on PC's, that itself is quite limiting, especially when you're looking at expensive prices right now, they will still be somewhat expensive after these 2 years (not expensive would be at least £200 if not less than £100).

We also can't go ahead proclaiming VR as the future of gaming since consoles don't have their own just yet and not everyone (like myself) is really into VR.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I hope the Oculus Rift does do good, but I don't really care for it right now so let them take their time, if they have the funds. Two years still sounds like a bit to much with what they've shown. It's great Valve supports them even with the other projects they're busy with.

Valve doesn't need to stick their fingers in to many pies. It's bad enough Google, the most popular search engine where you can find info you didn't even know about yourself, has an email service which is now fully(read: horribly) linked to Youtube(which they just had to buy), is driving around cars taking pictures of everyone's houses, and has the money to do this from their advertising empire. At least this is hardware that won't expose your personal life, but I used that as an example to demonstrate a company getting overly ambitious to the detriment of their customers and the general public. Microsoft is trying so many things at once it might cost them much of their market share where they once were dominant. Whether that's good or bad depends on the individual consumer and IT department.

Valve could have the money to try and research a VR headset. Although, they are currently working on getting the PC games industry to say bye to Windows and join them in Linux. Microsoft is weakened by their own stupidity with the design of Windows 8 and xbone's initial DRM and current requirement of at least buying a kinect, the poor handling of customer feedback to both Win 8, and the fact Gabe believes and has others believing Microsoft is going to close their OS to increase their own revenue a la Apple's iOS. Microsoft is still a mighty beast even with these weaknesses, and Valve needs to concentrate on keeping them from getting the upper hand over Steam OS and Steam Machines. Maybe a Steam brand VR headset can come afterwards and lower the cost of the Rift, since it will have decent competition.

 

[Flammablezeus]

If gaming gets to the point where I have to wear a screen on my head like in that picture, I think I might be done. I can't see that being comfortable. Probably wouldn't be good for your eyes either.

I'm fairly sure that they'll take comfort into consideration. As it is, gaming on a PC isn't good for your eyes if you don't take breaks often.

 

[Strazdas]

It may be available, however how widely used? Motion controls are available for what, 5 years at least now, yet majority of games, especially the big names, still completely ignore it. it wont spring instantly up.
I got nothing against virtual reality when it is introduced correctly. which means that i wont have to flail around in my room like an idiot. virtual reality has to have a control scheme that allows me to control it without me breaking things in my home. and im not alone with this wish.

If gaming gets to the point where I have to wear a screen on my head like in that picture, I think I might be done. I can't see that being comfortable. Probably wouldn't be good for your eyes either.

I'm fairly sure that they'll take comfort into consideration. As it is, gaming on a PC isn't good for your eyes if you don't take breaks often.

Just like they took comfort into consideration with VirtualBoy?

If you're worse off with the VR then something is obviously wrong. It should be a concern with all gamers alike unless of course you're a graphics whore or you suffer from ADHD.

So if it is harder to play flailing my arms than using a controller something is wrong with me? Well i better get it checked out then.
And what does this have to do with being a graphics whore? the technical aspects that is written in this article is far above our "next gen" console capabilities, so if anything VR is the graphic whores.

Also VR tech at this rate will only be available on PC's, that itself is quite limiting, especially when you're looking at expensive prices right now, they will still be somewhat expensive after these 2 years (not expensive would be at least £200 if not less than £100).

We also can't go ahead proclaiming VR as the future of gaming since consoles don't have their own just yet and not everyone (like myself) is really into VR.

It will only be available on PC because we dont have other gaming devices capable of running them. yet. we will, and other machines will run them as well. Of course first consumer products will be expensive, but there are plenty of people buying dual 290s now and those are mighty expensive and for most part quite unnecessary (unless your running a physics simulation or password cracking, but your better off getting multiple cheaper versions then).

Its also nice how you proclaim that it cant be future if consoles dont have it when consoles themselves are either turning into PCs with less choice (PS4, Xbox One) or failing (WiiU, Ouya).

 

[Strazdas]

If you're worse off with the VR then something is obviously wrong. It should be a concern with all gamers alike unless of course you're a graphics whore or you suffer from ADHD.

So if it is harder to play flailing my arms than using a controller something is wrong with me? Well i better get it checked out then.
And what does this have to do with being a graphics whore? the technical aspects that is written in this article is far above our "next gen" console capabilities, so if anything VR is the graphic whores.

*ahem* you've misquoted me and obviously trying too hard to prove me wrong.

In such case, I'll make my first ponit with a picture

Spoiler: like so

Then try explaining that if you think that cutting meat with a spoon is a more effective and efficient way instead of using a knife then that's fine but that's not the way civilization should be evolving. Apparently we're suppose to be moving forwards and not backwards.

And if one knew what a 'graphic whore' meant, you could've answered that yourself. For example, if one thinks that sacrificing good HCI (controls, UI and so forth), story and gameplay for the sake of a better visual experience then that would make one a graphic whore. Although I would like to point out that the only bias technology has is down to how we use it.

I have not misquoted you. your post is right here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.839704-Valve-Believes-Consumer-Ready-VR-Tech-is-Two-Years-Away#20626175

your point would hold true if VR would be used complimentary to doing these things in real life. It is not. You do not fly a jetpack jump off buildings and shoot aliens in real life. there are no real life tools or actions to do that. Instead, we use a control method that is realiable, reactive and does not cause us to break everything. instead of having to physically excert ourselves, while getting tired and having poor coordination. controllers are superior method of control than phyiscal replication when reaction time and full power is more important than precision.

using controller to play a shooter is more effective than running around on a treadmill. So yes, why do you want to go backwards.

Now once we turn VR into one where we can control it with our mind and not via outside motino detection, then i will completely agree with you.

It seems that you know the definition to graphics whore but apply it backwards. consdering that virtual reality will have better graphics and worse controls, almost no mechanics that human body cant replicate and likely very few games at least at the start, while console and PC games will have it all (well except graphics for consoles) VR are the graphic whores in this case.