markg wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
No one's going to buy these, people just don't like wearing silly shit on their heads.
Ask 3D telly.
Ask 3D telly.
Yeah, they haven't sold any 3D tellys. And nobody goes to see films in 3D either.
My telly does 3D, and I couldn't give a shit - much like most (sensible) people who also own a 3D TV, I expect.
Grim... wrote:
markg wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
No one's going to buy these, people just don't like wearing silly shit on their heads.
Ask 3D telly.
Ask 3D telly.
Yeah, they haven't sold any 3D tellys. And nobody goes to see films in 3D either.
My telly does 3D, and I couldn't give a shit - much like most (sensible) people who also own a 3D TV, I expect.
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Trooper wrote:
I think there is a huge difference between TV watching, which is just as much social activity and entirely passive, to actively playing a single player game, which is what the Oculus is all about.
Well I can't imagine anyone clamping an Oculus Rift to their head if there's anyone else in the house with them because it's so stunningly anti-social, and anyone with children is probably a non-starter too.
You're probably going to have a percentage of people who feel motion-sickness or get a headache too, or just can't 'see it' like with 3D. (I couldn't see the 3D effect on the 3DS for eample, I could just about get it focused for a short period of time then it made my head hurt and it went, something to do with defective stereoscopic vision or something.)
The actual market for the thing is very small IMO.
Motion sickness, sure. I think that will affect a lot of people. If you have binocular vision though, then you will be able to see it, its a true independent image to each eye, not the pseudo 3D of the 3DS.
Trooper wrote:
Grim... wrote:
markg wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
No one's going to buy these, people just don't like wearing silly shit on their heads.
Ask 3D telly.
Ask 3D telly.
Yeah, they haven't sold any 3D tellys. And nobody goes to see films in 3D either.
My telly does 3D, and I couldn't give a shit - much like most (sensible) people who also own a 3D TV, I expect.
Also
I've used it 3 times. Once to watch Captain America, once to watch tennis and once to play Super Stardust on the PS3. 
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Well I can't imagine anyone clamping an Oculus Rift to their head if there's anyone else in the house with them because it's so stunningly anti-social, and anyone with children is probably a non-starter too.
Anti-social? So when you're playing Borderlands the whole family gathers round to watch you yeah? Don't be a tit.
Bamba wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Well I can't imagine anyone clamping an Oculus Rift to their head if there's anyone else in the house with them because it's so stunningly anti-social, and anyone with children is probably a non-starter too.
Anti-social? So when you're playing Borderlands the whole family gathers round to watch you yeah? Don't be a tit.
You honestly can't see a difference?
When I play my Virtual Boy, people come from miles around to watch me.
Grim... wrote:
Bamba wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Well I can't imagine anyone clamping an Oculus Rift to their head if there's anyone else in the house with them because it's so stunningly anti-social, and anyone with children is probably a non-starter too.
Anti-social? So when you're playing Borderlands the whole family gathers round to watch you yeah? Don't be a tit.
You honestly can't see a difference?
Between sitting in a room on your own playing a game no one else in your house is interested in while (a) looking at a monitor or (b) wearing a head piece? Well, no; what is the difference exactly?
Bamba wrote:
Between sitting in a room on your own playing a game no one else in your house is interested in while (a) looking at a monitor or (b) wearing a head piece? Well, no; what is the difference exactly?
You're really arguing about the lack of difference between sitting in a chair in front of a computer which comes with a 100% ability to immediately pause/talk/look/interact/react/etc to anything that's going on around you, to wearing a fucking mainframe on your head?
It's not a question of 'No one else in the house is interested in Borderlands 2' (which isn't even entirely true because I'll do 'non-violent' stuff whilst AE Jnr is around, she knows her way around Sanctuary pretty well and all the characters and suchlike), it's a question of 'When I've got a computer wired into my brain and attached to my head I effectively become unavailable to my wife and child whatever may be going on in their world.'
I sometimes play games upstairs on the PC with headphones on. It's pretty much the same as that. Sometimes I go out running, or play golf I'm even more isolated from the family then.
It'll all come down to how compelling the experience is. I reckon that once the technology matures it'll be very compelling and your confident predictions of how it'll never take off will look about as insightful as someone going on about how the new fangled "talkies" are just a novelty.
It'll all come down to how compelling the experience is. I reckon that once the technology matures it'll be very compelling and your confident predictions of how it'll never take off will look about as insightful as someone going on about how the new fangled "talkies" are just a novelty.
Or those of us who couldn't see the point in an iPad.
I look forward to creeping up on people that are totally immersed in this and making them jump.
Sir Taxalot wrote:
I look forward to creeping up on people that are totally immersed in this and making them jump.
Especially if they're playing a horror game.
Heh. Imagine that: Rifted up, big stereo headphones, heart rate up, totally immersed when suddenly... a lick to the back of the neck 
Has anyone tried that Virtual Haircut with the binaural recording? Imagine that level of audio combined with an Oculus Rift! I reckon I'd shit my pants.
Has anyone tried that Virtual Haircut with the binaural recording? Imagine that level of audio combined with an Oculus Rift! I reckon I'd shit my pants.
For those that haven't had the pleasure... (use headphones)
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Between sitting in a room on your own playing a game no one else in your house is interested in while (a) looking at a monitor or (b) wearing a head piece? Well, no; what is the difference exactly?
You're really arguing about the lack of difference between sitting in a chair in front of a computer which comes with a 100% ability to immediately pause/talk/look/interact/react/etc to anything that's going on around you, to wearing a fucking mainframe on your head?
It's not a question of 'No one else in the house is interested in Borderlands 2' (which isn't even entirely true because I'll do 'non-violent' stuff whilst AE Jnr is around, she knows her way around Sanctuary pretty well and all the characters and suchlike), it's a question of 'When I've got a computer wired into my brain and attached to my head I effectively become unavailable to my wife and child whatever may be going on in their world.'
"Wearing a mainframe"? "Having a computer wired into your brain"? Dude, this isn't the fucking Lawnmower Man you're reenacting here; you're being somewhat hysterical there. As others have said its not going to be massively different from being particularly engaged in a game while wearing headphones. And I'm not arguing there won't be times when you wouldn't want to use it but the idea that there's never a time when you're gaming purely solo and could indulge isn't true.
Bamba wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Between sitting in a room on your own playing a game no one else in your house is interested in while (a) looking at a monitor or (b) wearing a head piece? Well, no; what is the difference exactly?
You're really arguing about the lack of difference between sitting in a chair in front of a computer which comes with a 100% ability to immediately pause/talk/look/interact/react/etc to anything that's going on around you, to wearing a fucking mainframe on your head?
It's not a question of 'No one else in the house is interested in Borderlands 2' (which isn't even entirely true because I'll do 'non-violent' stuff whilst AE Jnr is around, she knows her way around Sanctuary pretty well and all the characters and suchlike), it's a question of 'When I've got a computer wired into my brain and attached to my head I effectively become unavailable to my wife and child whatever may be going on in their world.'
"Wearing a mainframe"? "Having a computer wired into your brain"? Dude, this isn't the fucking Lawnmower Man you're reenacting here; you're being somewhat hysterical there. As others have said its not going to be massively different from being particularly engaged in a game while wearing headphones. And I'm not arguing there won't be times when you wouldn't want to use it but the idea that there's never a time when you're gaming purely solo and could indulge isn't true.
I agree with Bamba here. It probably won't ever be a mainstream device, but if it gets to the point where it just works, there will be a market. Even the prototype units don't look that unwieldy, and it can only improve. They seem intent on getting there, and I think they will.
I'd have one today if I could justify the expense.
DavPaz wrote:
I'd have one today if I could justify the expense.
A haircut? I suppose it's a larger than normal area to deal with.
British Nervoso wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
I'd have one today if I could justify the expense.
A haircut? I suppose it's a larger than normal area to deal with.
*applause*
Played a bit more of Asseto Corsa tonight, and managed a few laps without getting nauseous this time!
This does actually feel like something that will possibly give me faster times, it's actually quite a bit easier to spot the apex and work out when you should be braking and stuff like that. This shows promise for sim driving for the final kit...
This does actually feel like something that will possibly give me faster times, it's actually quite a bit easier to spot the apex and work out when you should be braking and stuff like that. This shows promise for sim driving for the final kit...
Well, that was quick.
I figured I would put it back up on ebay for a high price while I was mucking around with it (£320 fact fans). It only went and sold today!
So if anyone does want to play around with one, the market is pretty healthy it seems, total cost to me to have one for a few weeks was about £20 after ebay fees and postage costs.
I figured I would put it back up on ebay for a high price while I was mucking around with it (£320 fact fans). It only went and sold today!
So if anyone does want to play around with one, the market is pretty healthy it seems, total cost to me to have one for a few weeks was about £20 after ebay fees and postage costs.
Grim... wrote:
Invite me over when you get one 
Trooper wrote:
Will do
I didn't actually expect it to sell so quickly! 
Holy shit!
Facebook are buying Oculus for TWO BILLION DOLLARS!
Facebook are buying Oculus for TWO BILLION DOLLARS!
That's interesting. I wonder how they think that will fit in with their empire. Seems a massive departure.
Hmmm... Is this the end of the Oculus as we know it? What did the kick starter backers at the start actually back?
What the fuck?
Good for all the Kickstarter backers who are suddenly rich, right?
British Nervoso wrote:
Good for all the Kickstarter backers who are suddenly rich, right?
It'd be amazing publicity if they chipped them a grand each, and they could certainly afford it.
Grim... wrote:
British Nervoso wrote:
Good for all the Kickstarter backers who are suddenly rich, right?
It'd be amazing publicity if they chipped them a grand each, and they could certainly afford it.
A grand? It would still be laughable. If they were proper investors then they'd all be rich now. Kickstarter is a complete scam.
I just read on Twitter:-
"What do the Kickstarter backers of Oculus Rift get?
A lesson in capitalism"
"What do the Kickstarter backers of Oculus Rift get?
A lesson in capitalism"
I don't get it. Why won't they just get whatever they were buying when they backed it? If they wanted to buy shares in something then they should have bought shares in something.
markg wrote:
I don't get it. Why won't they just get whatever they were buying when they backed it? If they wanted to buy shares in something then they should have bought shares in something.
The problem is now if Facebook decide they want to go in a different direction with it. If they decide gaming is not the way to go and they want to use it for virtual meetings etc, what are the (primarily gaming-orientated) backers going to end up with? Also, if it's anything like Facebook they'll fill it full of ads and scrape all your personal data to sell on. It doesn't sound like something the core gaming community would want.
Persson from Mojang has already said he's cancelled the Oculus Rift version of Minecraft because of this news. Good on him.
He's cancelled the OR version of Mincraft? That seems a bit knee-jerky (and a lot dickish).
Grim... wrote:
He's cancelled the OR version of Mincraft? That seems a bit knee-jerky (and a lot dickish).
Yep.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014- ... -oculus-vr
Quote:
"I definitely want to be a part of VR, but I will not work with Facebook," the Minecraft creator said. "Their motives are too unclear and shifting, and they haven't historically been a stable platform. There's nothing about their history that makes me trust them, and that makes them seem creepy to me."
He further added, "I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."
"I have the greatest respect for the talented engineers and developers at Oculus. It's been a long time since I met a more dedicated and talented group of people. I understand this is purely a business deal, and I'd like to congratulate both Facebook and the Oculus owners. But this is where we part ways."
He further added, "I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."
"I have the greatest respect for the talented engineers and developers at Oculus. It's been a long time since I met a more dedicated and talented group of people. I understand this is purely a business deal, and I'd like to congratulate both Facebook and the Oculus owners. But this is where we part ways."
If I was Zuckerburg I'd be finding out how many zeroes his principles were worth right about now
The thing that confuses me is what have Oculus Rift actually got? Sony are working on a similar product and surely once the principles are established they'll just be another type of display that presumably all the usual companies who make that sort of thing will produce a version of.
Grim... wrote:
If I was Zuckerburg I'd be finding out how many zeroes his principles were worth right about now
He's already said he's got far more money than he knows what to do with. It doesn't appear to wholly motivate him. Otherwise why would he come out and say it before talking to Facebook about it?
Reading up about Facebook's plans, they do seem to have some good ideas.
There's a lot of value in being the first to do something.
markg wrote:
The thing that confuses me is is what have Oculus Rift actually got? Sony are working on a similar product and surely once the principles are established they'll just be another type of display that presumably all the usual companies who make that sort of thing will produce a version of.
There's a lot of value in being the first to do something.
Grim... wrote:
There's a lot of value in being the first to announce something.
Fixed. Sony have been working on theirs since 2011.
And the concept is even older than that. It's just a refinement and Sony will probably get to market with their version before them anyway. And Sony have the games to go along with it as well as a piece of hardware already present under loads of tellies to run them. Oculus Rift still needs a gaming PC, it's a bit niche. I'm certain that Facebook know a lot more about it all than I do but I just don't get where that valuation comes from.
markg wrote:
And the concept is even older than that. It's just a refinement and Sony will probably get to market with their version before them anyway. And Sony have the games to go along with it as well as a piece of hardware already present under loads of tellies to run them. Oculus Rift still needs a gaming PC, it's a bit niche. I'm certain that Facebook know a lot more about it all than I do but I just don't get where that valuation comes from.
It's a world where WhatsApp is worth 8 times that.
This was in the FT today (behind paywall):
Quote:
When you know that your own business model is doomed and your share price is only high because other people don't yet realise how bad it is, you should splash about using your shares to buy a load of promising businesses in the hope that you get lucky and actually end up owning something that will become what you were supposed to be.
markg wrote:
I'm certain that Facebook know a lot more about it all than I do but I just don't get where that valuation comes from.
Because it's unlikely to be gaming applications they're looking at. Virtual meetings and such malarkey have been touted which opens it up to a whole new audience; and a whole new set of people who might give them money for it.
Which is fine in itself and it's not a bad thing to see the tech used in different ways but I certainly share the fears of people who worry Facebook will focus on those uses to the exclusion of the gaming aspirations that actually got the thing off the ground.
British Nervoso wrote:
Grim... wrote:
If I was Zuckerburg I'd be finding out how many zeroes his principles were worth right about now
He's already said he's got far more money than he knows what to do with. It doesn't appear to wholly motivate him. Otherwise why would he come out and say it before talking to Facebook about it?
http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/20/553104 ... ubled-2013
Quote:
Minecraft developer Mojang's profits more than doubled in 2013
Mojang, the developer of Minecraft, saw its profits more than double in 2013, when the studio earned 816 million Swedish kronor ($128 million), The Wall Street Journal reports.
Revenue was up 38 percent to 2.07 billion kronor ($322.4 million) last year, according to figures provided to the Journal. As the publication points out, the Swedish studio of fewer than 40 employees crossed this milestone with a game first released in 2009 and which eschews the free-to-play model.
The financial results are the latest in a series of ongoing milestones for the blocky sandbox game across several platforms. Earlier this year, Markus "Notch" Persson announced that Minecraft's original PC version had reached 100 million registered users, 14.3 precent of which converted to paid accounts. In February, Notch revealed that Minecraft sold more than 14 million units on PC since its release. Released in May 2013, the game's Xbox 360 incarnation surpassed 11 million sales as of February 2014. Sales figures as of January 2014 put Minecraft's PlayStation 3 version sales at more than 1 million units since its December 2013 release.
Minecraft is also available for Android and iOS and is headed to PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PlayStation Vita. A Minecraft movie is in development at Warner Bros.
Mojang, the developer of Minecraft, saw its profits more than double in 2013, when the studio earned 816 million Swedish kronor ($128 million), The Wall Street Journal reports.
Revenue was up 38 percent to 2.07 billion kronor ($322.4 million) last year, according to figures provided to the Journal. As the publication points out, the Swedish studio of fewer than 40 employees crossed this milestone with a game first released in 2009 and which eschews the free-to-play model.
The financial results are the latest in a series of ongoing milestones for the blocky sandbox game across several platforms. Earlier this year, Markus "Notch" Persson announced that Minecraft's original PC version had reached 100 million registered users, 14.3 precent of which converted to paid accounts. In February, Notch revealed that Minecraft sold more than 14 million units on PC since its release. Released in May 2013, the game's Xbox 360 incarnation surpassed 11 million sales as of February 2014. Sales figures as of January 2014 put Minecraft's PlayStation 3 version sales at more than 1 million units since its December 2013 release.
Minecraft is also available for Android and iOS and is headed to PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PlayStation Vita. A Minecraft movie is in development at Warner Bros.
Bamba wrote:
markg wrote:
I'm certain that Facebook know a lot more about it all than I do but I just don't get where that valuation comes from.
Because it's unlikely to be gaming applications they're looking at. Virtual meetings and such malarkey have been touted which opens it up to a whole new audience; and a whole new set of people who might give them money for it.
I'd be amazed if it is commonplace for people to be having 3D virtual meetings within ten years. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it sounds like a massive load of bollocks. The somewhat rather fundamental stumbling block there is that you wouldn't actually be able to see the faces of the people you are meeting with since they would be obscured by the VR headset strapped to their bonce. Games are the only thing that will really drive it anything else will be a spin off. If Zuckerberg says anything about VR meetings and other such bullshit then I reckon it's probably just to quell uncertainty among his investors about a risky venture into an entirely new area.