Why the Oculus Rift is a Big Deal

[Shamus Young]

Why the Oculus Rift is a Big Deal

More than just a gimmick, Oculus Rift has the potential to change the facegear of gaming.

Read Full Article

 

[Alcom1]

Which leads to the analogy: Facebook is about as welcome in my Oculus as pesticide is in my cupcakes.

I hope there's no Facebook in my Oculus. Even if there is, I'd expect there to be a massive jailbreak and removal effort.

 

[linforcer]

Should I be embarrassed for not even knowing about this deal? Either way, thanks for a nuanced perspective on the issue.

 

[Ell Jay]

The question nobody answers for me is what's so good about VR? Immersion needs limits, or else I'd feel cheated that I had to sleep for 1/3 of the time I was playing Skyrim.

 

[Foolery]

It's about as big of deal as motion controls were. It's going to be a novelty that people will obsess about for a bit and then return to traditional gaming.

 

[SharedProphet]

I liked Raph Koster's reasoning about Facebook's motivations: http://www.raphkoster.com/2014/03/25/musings-on-the-oculus-sale/

 

[BreakfastMan]

It's about as big of deal as motion controls were. It's going to be a novelty that people will obsess about for a bit and then return to traditional gaming.

Yeah, I am feeling this as well. Both motion-controls and motion-capture seemed like they would have grand possibility to fundamentally shift everything, providing much more immersive, better experiences, and well... We know how those turned out.

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

 

[DrOswald]

It's about as big of deal as motion controls were. It's going to be a novelty that people will obsess about for a bit and then return to traditional gaming.

Yeah, I am feeling this as well. Both motion-controls and motion-capture seemed like they would have grand possibility to fundamentally shift everything, providing much more immersive, better experiences, and well... We know how those turned out.

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

The problem with motion controls is that they are an inherently inferior input method. The core quality of an input device can be expressed by three metrics: Precision, translation, and versatility.

Precision is how accurate the input method is. How reliably can you input with the device? Motion controls are horribly inaccurate. And this isn't just a tech issue, it is a human limitation. We are not machines, we do not move in exactly the same way every time.

Translation is how much effort must be expended getting an idea from your brain translated to an action on the computer. The more effort the more we need to focus on the input instead of the idea. Most important is mental effort. Remembering all the controls is already hard enough when it is just buttons on a controller. We can see those buttons and test them to help us remember. When we use motion controls there is little to help us think. We have to remember every command, and they are rarely simple motions. We have to remember each quirk of the system which is different for every game. Cognitive overhead distracts us from our entertainment. Physical effort is also important - it is far easier to push a button than swing an arm. You will think less about the button push because it is a trivial physical motion.

Motion controls seem versatile but in practice are not. Humans are only capable of so many precise non awkward actions. This means motions controls are very limited.

VR, on the other hand, is theoretically a better way to see a game world, if only for for the First Person view. Applying similar metrics, VR theoretically increases precision and translation at the cost of versatility.

Motion controls were a fad because they were worse on even a theoretical level. VR tech is at least theoretically better in some circumstances.

 

[SpinFusor]

Now to sit with my popcorn and watch all the people who haven't used it pontificate on why it won't catch on.

 

[BreakfastMan]

It's about as big of deal as motion controls were. It's going to be a novelty that people will obsess about for a bit and then return to traditional gaming.

Yeah, I am feeling this as well. Both motion-controls and motion-capture seemed like they would have grand possibility to fundamentally shift everything, providing much more immersive, better experiences, and well... We know how those turned out.

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

The problem with motion controls is that they are an inherently inferior input method. The core quality of an input device can be expressed by three metrics: Precision, translation, and versatility.

Precision is how accurate the input method is. How reliably can you input with the device? Motion controls are horribly inaccurate. And this isn't just a tech issue, it is a human limitation. We are not machines, we do not move in exactly the same way every time.

Translation is how much effort must be expended getting an idea from your brain translated to an action on the computer. The more effort the more we need to focus on the input instead of the idea. Most important is mental effort. Remembering all the controls is already hard enough when it is just buttons on a controller. We can see those buttons and test them to help us remember. When we use motion controls there is little to help us think. We have to remember every command, and they are rarely simple motions. We have to remember each quirk of the system which is different for every game. Cognitive overhead distracts us from our entertainment. Physical effort is also important - it is far easier to push a button than swing an arm. You will think less about the button push because it is a trivial physical motion.

Motion controls seem versatile but in practice are not. Humans are only capable of so many precise non awkward actions. This means motions controls are very limited.

VR, on the other hand, is theoretically a better way to see a game world, if only for for the First Person view. Applying similar metrics, VR theoretically increases precision and translation at the cost of versatility.

Motion controls were a fad because they were worse on even a theoretical level. VR tech is at least theoretically better in some circumstances.

I really don't see how VR improves precision or translation. I mean, moving your head a little is about as easy as moving your hand a little, and we have finer control over the motion of our hands than we with our head. That is not to mention the problems that arise for older people or people with neck injuries that don't arise with other control methods (while these problems aren't as bad as motion control, they should still be a factor). :\

 

[BreakfastMan]

Now to sit with my popcorn and watch all the people who haven't used it pontificate on why it won't catch on.

You are sounding like the people who tried Wii Sports at E3 2006...

 

[DrOswald]

It's about as big of deal as motion controls were. It's going to be a novelty that people will obsess about for a bit and then return to traditional gaming.

Yeah, I am feeling this as well. Both motion-controls and motion-capture seemed like they would have grand possibility to fundamentally shift everything, providing much more immersive, better experiences, and well... We know how those turned out.

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

The problem with motion controls is that they are an inherently inferior input method. The core quality of an input device can be expressed by three metrics: Precision, translation, and versatility.

Precision is how accurate the input method is. How reliably can you input with the device? Motion controls are horribly inaccurate. And this isn't just a tech issue, it is a human limitation. We are not machines, we do not move in exactly the same way every time.

Translation is how much effort must be expended getting an idea from your brain translated to an action on the computer. The more effort the more we need to focus on the input instead of the idea. Most important is mental effort. Remembering all the controls is already hard enough when it is just buttons on a controller. We can see those buttons and test them to help us remember. When we use motion controls there is little to help us think. We have to remember every command, and they are rarely simple motions. We have to remember each quirk of the system which is different for every game. Cognitive overhead distracts us from our entertainment. Physical effort is also important - it is far easier to push a button than swing an arm. You will think less about the button push because it is a trivial physical motion.

Motion controls seem versatile but in practice are not. Humans are only capable of so many precise non awkward actions. This means motions controls are very limited.

VR, on the other hand, is theoretically a better way to see a game world, if only for for the First Person view. Applying similar metrics, VR theoretically increases precision and translation at the cost of versatility.

Motion controls were a fad because they were worse on even a theoretical level. VR tech is at least theoretically better in some circumstances.

I really don't see how VR improves precision or translation. I mean, moving your head a little is about as easy as moving your hand a little, and we have finer control over the motion of our hands than we with our head. That is not to mention the problems that arise for older people or people with neck injuries that don't arise with other control methods (while these problems aren't as bad as motion control, they should still be a factor). :\

I think my point got a little muddled there. Motion controls are an input device. Us to Computer. VR is an output device. Computer to Us. VR tech is not an input device. Head movement plays only the exact role it does in real life. It does not change your orientation. It slightly adjusts your view. You don't turn around in a VR game by spinning your head. VR improves the precision and translation of the output.

Precision is improved by more accurately presenting spacial data. Monitors, even very wide or large ones, work like a window into a world through which we look. We are positioned outside of the game world looking in. Space cannot be communicated effectively using such a setup. VR tech shifts the position of the player into the game world. In addition, head movements allow you to modify your view without moving your body. Your head does move more precisely than your hand for a very specific set of movements. Those movements all have to do with bringing sensory organs into the right position quickly.

Translation is improved by the image being displayed in the way our brain is used to seeing the world. Imagine if everything you could see was limited to directly in front of your face through a small window 2-3 feet away. That is how games are played now. You have no left or right, only directly in front. There is no peripheral vision, no left or right or up or down. Only directly forward. We gamers are used to translating such an image into a game world, but it is a lot of effort. Establishing a clear mental view of 3D space is incredibly difficult under those limitations. This is why it is so hard to platform in a first person game. Your spacial reference is so handicapped you literally cannot figure out where your feet are. VR tech enables the use of the visual tools you would use under normal circumstances to establish 3D space.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"They're not so much evil as a pushy, prying gossip salesman with a wobbly moral compass."
LOL, great phrasing!

"Sure, Apple was the first to introduce the modern smartphone paradigm, but that didn't let them lock down the market."
It did give them a MASSIVE dominance the first few years they'd never have gotten otherwise, though.
But indeed, that did not last. Still, they get quite fat even today on EXTREME brand loyalty....

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

It's about as big of deal as motion controls were. It's going to be a novelty that people will obsess about for a bit and then return to traditional gaming.

Yeah, I am feeling this as well. Both motion-controls and motion-capture seemed like they would have grand possibility to fundamentally shift everything, providing much more immersive, better experiences, and well... We know how those turned out.

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

The problem with motion controls is that they are an inherently inferior input method. The core quality of an input device can be expressed by three metrics: Precision, translation, and versatility.

Precision is how accurate the input method is. How reliably can you input with the device? Motion controls are horribly inaccurate. And this isn't just a tech issue, it is a human limitation. We are not machines, we do not move in exactly the same way every time.

Translation is how much effort must be expended getting an idea from your brain translated to an action on the computer. The more effort the more we need to focus on the input instead of the idea. Most important is mental effort. Remembering all the controls is already hard enough when it is just buttons on a controller. We can see those buttons and test them to help us remember. When we use motion controls there is little to help us think. We have to remember every command, and they are rarely simple motions. We have to remember each quirk of the system which is different for every game. Cognitive overhead distracts us from our entertainment. Physical effort is also important - it is far easier to push a button than swing an arm. You will think less about the button push because it is a trivial physical motion.

Motion controls seem versatile but in practice are not. Humans are only capable of so many precise non awkward actions. This means motions controls are very limited.

VR, on the other hand, is theoretically a better way to see a game world, if only for for the First Person view. Applying similar metrics, VR theoretically increases precision and translation at the cost of versatility.

Motion controls were a fad because they were worse on even a theoretical level. VR tech is at least theoretically better in some circumstances.

I really don't see how VR improves precision or translation. I mean, moving your head a little is about as easy as moving your hand a little, and we have finer control over the motion of our hands than we with our head. That is not to mention the problems that arise for older people or people with neck injuries that don't arise with other control methods (while these problems aren't as bad as motion control, they should still be a factor). :\

I think my point got a little muddled there. Motion controls are an input device. Us to Computer. VR is an output device. Computer to Us. VR tech is not an input device. Head movement plays only the exact role it does in real life. It does not change your orientation. It slightly adjusts your view. You don't turn around in a VR game by spinning your head. VR improves the precision and translation of the output.

Precision is improved by more accurately presenting spacial data. Monitors, even very wide or large ones, work like a window into a world through which we look. We are positioned outside of the game world looking in. Space cannot be communicated effectively using such a setup. VR tech shifts the position of the player into the game world. In addition, head movements allow you to modify your view without moving your body. Your head does move more precisely than your hand for a very specific set of movements. Those movements all have to do with bringing sensory organs into the right position quickly.

Translation is improved by the image being displayed in the way our brain is used to seeing the world. Imagine if everything you could see was limited to directly in front of your face through a small window 2-3 feet away. That is how games are played now. You have no left or right, only directly in front. There is no peripheral vision, no left or right or up or down. Only directly forward. We gamers are used to translating such an image into a game world, but it is a lot of effort. Establishing a clear mental view of 3D space is incredibly difficult under those limitations. This is why it is so hard to platform in a first person game. Your spacial reference is so handicapped you literally cannot figure out where your feet are. VR tech enables the use of the visual tools you would use under normal circumstances to establish 3D space.

Exactly this DrOswald. I love Gran Tourismo, I have a racing wheel. I would LOVE if shoulder checking were an actual head movement rather than a slightly akward button push that only gives a perfect 90 degree sideways view.
Similarly, I am excited for the possibility of once again playing Flying Games that are good. (Seriously Games Industry, where is my Ps3 flight-stick? And good mech game?)

Finally, motion controls were further crippled by staggering lack of imaginative uses for them. They had potential, but nobody had a damned CLUE of what to do with them. The simple difference of perspective will more than cover for the lack of imagination that will be employed, because once you ARE there, it's finished.

My head just exploded with the thought of one thing: Spider-Man. If you can make me feel, even just a little more like Spidey than the Xbox game for Spider Man 2, you have just won all of gaming.

 

[AldUK]

Great article, Shamus. I too, am extremely excited about the Oculus and the technology it is bringing to the industry. Like you covered in your article, it is not a gimmick, there are some very talented, serious names involved in bringing the Oculus to market that you cannot dismiss or ignore. It baffled me that Jim in his recent Jimquisition on this topic dismissed the Oculus as a minor distraction that would be forgotten because VR is something that comes and goes over and over. It continues to baffle me that people on the Escapist seem to agree with Jim's perception of the subject and proclaim that the Oculus and the technology is nothing more then a distraction, nothing to be taken seriously. Have none of you even looked at the amount of money and technology that is being poured into this? There are working prototypes that have stunned people with how good they are. The only reason we don't all have one yet is because they are fine-tuning issues with motion-sickness and headaches. But you can bet your ass it's coming and it's going to take the gaming market by storm.

I'm more hyped for Star Citizen with the Oculus than anything else. More hyped then I have been for any game ever and I'm 26 and have been gaming daily for 18 years.

 

[verdant monkai]

I'm sorry but I wouldn't call this virtual reality. Reality is what you wake up to every day and encompasses all of the five sense.

When you put on an occulus rift you are essentially looking at a very interactive screen. This isnt really virtual reality. The OR is an early look into what will hopefully someday evolve into an actual synthetic world we can visit.

Maybe I've watched too much sword art online and log horizon. But I can't get that hyped about walking around a purely visual CGI field. Or playing an fps that I have to stand up to play and still doesn't allow me to have 20 20 vision.

Occulus rift probably is the next step. But for me it's just a very expensive small shuffle forwards.

Let me know when I can sprint around in a fantasy world, whilst my body in the real world is completely still and not making me look like an arsehole.

 

[Scorpid]

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

::Blink:: ::Blink:: Really? You don't think that being fully immersed visually into a world is enough of a sell for you in the long term? Have you imagined playing something like Black and White or the Sims on a VR headset? How about a something like Valkaryie from CCP, you play as a fighter pilot in space. What about watching TV or Movies? Or are you the kind of guy that would say 25 years ago to the internet. "Yeah I know it communicates like telephones but with sending data instead of voices, but isn't that only the extent of it?" That's one hell of a downplay coming from someone that isn't a PR rep for perhaps a company that only makes monitors with profits to protect.

 

[BreakfastMan]

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

::Blink:: ::Blink:: Really? You don't think that being fully immersed visually into a world is enough of a sell for you in the long term?

A: I doubt VR fully immerses someone in a world, and B: not every game needs "immersion" (see the aforementioned Mario example). It would be interesting for some games, but that is about it.

Have you imagined playing something like Black and White or the Sims on a VR headset?

No? Why would I? It sounds completely pointless, quite frankly.

How about a something like Valkaryie from CCP, you play as a fighter pilot in space.

That could be interesting, if it was in first person. Otherwise, I doubt it could work out.

What about watching TV or Movies?

Don't much see the point there. I get why VR is interesting for first-person games, but for movies? I don't understand.

 

[SporkySpork]

I see the buyout as Zuckererg seeing Oculus Rift and thinking "if I buy this, and it bombs, big deal, I'm a multi-billionaire. If I buy this, and it takes off, I walk away richer. But if I don't buy this and it does take off..."

It's a little silly to think that Facebook would stay a social media company, and it does, it'll end up like MySpace. It's smart to branch out, and Zuckerberg is smart to realize that shaking things up is a better long-term strategy.

 

[Scorpid]

And, quite frankly, not every game has to be "immersive". I don't really want to be in Mario's world. I don't really want to be in Solid Snake's world. The tech could be an interesting toy to play around with in first-person games (especially ones like Gone Home, STALKER, Amnesia, or Kairo), but... That seems to be the extent of the system's usefulness. :\

::Blink:: ::Blink:: Really? You don't think that being fully immersed visually into a world is enough of a sell for you in the long term?

A: I doubt VR fully immerses someone in a world, and B: not every game needs "immersion" (see the aforementioned Mario example). It would be interesting for some games, but that is about it.

Have you imagined playing something like Black and White or the Sims on a VR headset?

No? Why would I? It sounds completely pointless, quite frankly.

How about a something like Valkaryie from CCP, you play as a fighter pilot in space.

That could be interesting, if it was in first person. Otherwise, I doubt it could work out.

What about watching TV or Movies?

Don't much see the point there. I get why VR is interesting for first-person games, but for movies? I don't understand.

I'm honestly shocked you are defending this. What size monitor are you watching this on? Why don't you go back to smaller 1024 x 768 resolution because I know it isn't that. Those monitors are dirt cheap and convey information well enough. it's because you are trying to create the sort of experience strapping a VR headset on creates. VISUAL immersion. Removing entirely, or in the case of monitors as much as possible, anything outside of what you want to see as the article spelled out. With a VR headset for gaming you won't have any reason to get a bigger monitor. And again as the article explained it removes some of the flat image a monitor creates. If this doesn't impress you simply have no imagination. Go back to your radial dial telephone, those fancy touch buttons are just a needless complication while doing the same thing!