TR writes: "We're sat opposite Palmer Luckey, 21-year-old inventor of the Oculus Rift. There's so much we want to ask him but right now he's too busy explaining his plans to build the ultimate Pokemon team."
I think what they meant is that even 1080p doesn't look amazing on the rift. For a full fov they are aiming for 4k resolution and you need 60 fps on the rift or it breaks immersion completely...
I just don't see the ps4 or Xbox one doing 4k 60fps for commercial games. It could work for indie games maybe on the consoles, but that's a small market.
I think its stupid for them to say that now its open season Sony and other company will create one that will work with people devices which will in turn take away business from Oculus especially if the price is right :/ make sonething for everyone .
People...did you even read more than the headline?
his comment was related to the life cycles of console's in general...that having a device with a shelf life of 7 plus years...is NOT good for state of the art technology development...thats the limiting factor...
why...would anyone...argue that?
its in no way arrogant...its just the truth...the entire business model behind a video game console pushes against development of something like OR...thats not a bad thing, or a good thing...its just the way it is...the PS4 or Xbox One is NOT a platform that would be able to change with OR as it matures...
Well Occulus Rift represents a mroe concerted effort among many distinguished people to get that tech up and running. I doubt Sony can match the effort behind it, especially considering its current financial state. That might change though. I'm not dismissing their efforts immedaitely however. One thing Sony can do very well is hardware.
"We're good friends with Valve," laughs Luckey
A possible strength of the Steambox maybe in the future?
Occulus Rift seems to be one of those things used to spur innovation in the area or VR. I'm sure they want to market it, and make money off it, but realistically, they will probably make more money off selling the patent licences to 3rd parties to make their own devices.
Sony have the potential to develop a VR headset better than the rift on certain aspects, but it will not be affordable if they go with the tech they're using with their HMZ. The HMZ uses densely packed 720p pixels per eye on a tiny oled display slightly larger than your eye. The ppi on this is ridiculous. That's where most of the cost comes from. Forget about 1080p.
What the Rift cannot do for now(still in dev stage) is positional tracking unless combined with the Razor Hydra attached to the users body and set up with codes. Sony could use the PS cam to detect the light bar on their VR headset for complete tracking of all axis positions. However, this will mean additional cost on buying a PS cam.
The main thing I'm concerned about with the Sony VR headset is support. We've seen in the past through the eye toy, ps eye, and Move where the lack of support from 3rd party devs as well as Sony is historically evident. Sony do not push their products like it was the next big thing and devs don't support it like they should. Instead, it becomes an optional almost novelty like device which fades away into obscurity over time.
I've watch many of video reviews and impession on the Rift and its demo games, and read up on the latest news since the beginning. The community is growing, and devs are exploring new experiences, concepts, and possibilities like landing on uncharted territory for the first time. The tech is finally here on a mainstream consumer level price. I believe the VR revolution is coming and if Sony has their own version, I hope they fully support it.
This is bullshit. Xbox 1 and PS4 are too "limited" yet they're planning to release it for android? WTF? Is all I can say. Who wants to play Android smartphone games with an Oculus Rift?
because someone clearly didn't read the article...
Android...is an open platform...PC is an open platform...Steam is an open platform...the Xbox One is not an open platform...the PS4 is not an open platform...
do you see any differences in there?
If you read the article...he wasn't talking about hardware right now...he was talking about platforms that allow hardware to grow within it as fast as development moves with the OR...Android is a fantastic platform for huge hardware turn around...every 6 months there are cell phones that destroy those before it...PC same thing (although, not quite as quickly)...
the consoles? absolutely not...7 years from now, guess how old the tech in a Ps4 will be?...probably roughly 7 years old...and when there is a PS5...it won't be the same platform...it'll start all over again...that is not a viable platform for something like OR...that is all he was saying...
The difference is that Oculus rift will be a good experience and will have games that support it.There is already over 100 games adapted for it and it's 1 year from release, right now sony's copy pasta thing is still a rumor and there won't be much games that support it
First mainstream VR wont really take off IMO, hope im wrong but will be so many technical snafus. it still seeminly needs, pc or some sort of console to be plugged into to take it to next level which makes it a console plus 300-400 more for rift. MEH
I disagree, I think they learned their lesson with the PS3 cost and its showing with PS4. I believe they will attempt to make it as affordable as possible to both compete with the Rift (for people that want the experience and have both PC and PS4) and ensure people support it on a large scale. They know if people cant afford it, it wont sale.
if you're expecting it to be less than $300, you will be disappointed. There are smart watches that are more expensive than that. So forget it. I'd be surprised if its below $400
But if there is remote play for Vita that works really good like it looks on PS4 they could do remote play with Occulus for a wireless headset and just have blutooth for it to connect to an actual controller. I wonder if the PS4 3D headset will have something like that or will at least be wireless.
Yeah, I am looking very forward to seeing what Sony has in store for the PS4 and VR. It just needs to be affordable and you need to be able to use at least 2 at the same time for coop games.
"What we're most excited about - really the core direction of our company - is trying to make something that works on platforms that are moving quickly and that are continuously getting more powerful, and consoles are not those."
Well, prepare to have a niche device. You're trying to popularize VR gaming by marketing to those few who regularly update their systems to the most powerful specs? Then again, this could all just be talk because MS and Sony haven't shown them any love yet.
OC is essentially pushing twice the content (left/right eyes) that's going to require some serious horsepower, or, heavy reductions in fidelity/resolution on limited hardware.
Sony already has a ton of experience with OLED, 3D and head-mounted displays, I'd say that they're our best chance for a quality consumer VR kit. Not to mention they've got the funds and manufacturing capabilities to bring a consumer version to market much quicker than Oculus ever could.
My dream setup is a mix of Oculus and Kinect 2.0. Being able to be "in" the world of say Skyrim, and looking down at your hands to see them in gauntlets, holding a sword, and 1-1 rendering with no lag as you swing it would be amaze-balls
I'm not a big fan of kickstarters lately, but it has its advantages in terms of development and creative control. This VR tech innovation was created by one guy and put together by his co-founders similar to past tech legends. It could remain in his garage/lab as a neat device or expand into something amazing. With limited funds, what do you do? Sell the tech to a big name corp who might have a different development vision as you? Or use a kickstarter to help gather ethusiastic and like-minded devs who can help fund and develop the tech as a community?
pretty dumb thing for them to say. it seems like they're really over-estimating the power of mobile devices.
look at things now - even the most powerful phone can't match ps3 visuals. its getting close, but we're at the end of the console cycle and mobile still hasn't caught up. the same thing is going to happen this gen, and there's no reason to think otherwise.
They have some pretty bright minds behind this product, remember. One including Carmack - possibly the greatest programmer and engineer alive today. If this is their stance on things, I would like to believe they know what they are talking about. It's not like they would purposely alienate a large potential fanbase if they didn't have to.
This is from the mouth of a young individual who might not have the best business/pr sense (Luckey). This is the first interview I have read of his, and it makes me a little less hopeful for the product. You can have something amazing, but if you dont do a good job with the business side, it could be going nowhere.
i agree they have a lot of bright minds working at the company - though i'd argue that carmack has been surpassed by others as far as his engineering skills go. the man is a genius, no doubt, but looking at the mess that was RAGE makes me question where his head is at nowadays...
but that said, if they're expecting to release the rift next year with android support from the get-go (as they've said is their plan) then not supporting consoles for their 'limitations' seems ridiculous considering the massive gap in power between even the most powerful android device and a ps4 or xbox one. he complains that consoles can't hit 60fps @ 1080p now while ignoring the fact that no phone or tablet, and the majority of PCs, can't hit those marks either at the same graphical fidelity. his argument just doesn't make sense.
I am happy they will not be compromising their vision just to expand the market. An amazing product for fewer people is better than a crappy product for the masses. Access to everyone? More like dumb it down for the lowest common denominator.
Console owners getting outraged makes me shake my head here. You are not paying for the premium gaming experience, so why do you expect your consoles to be magically super capable power wise? They are low-mid range PCs and will be left in the dust soon enough. The kind of processing power this thing needs, will be even tough for some PCs to handle.
Instead you opted to pay so you can play your games online (a service that should be free) and to pay royalties to Sony and Microsoft. There is nothing wrong here, that is your personal choice.
Gamers that are investing in hardware instead want to see it used to max potential and I am super glad that oculus VR will make that happen.
PC Gamers that build strong rigs is the target demographic here. Not poor console owners that think 350-500$ for a console is a lot of money (something u will need to use for gaming for like 10 years).
Pc's > consoles. Thats a fact. I love consoles but I'm not going to pretend that they are good enough to keep up with things like the rift and others. Some of you have your feelings hurt.
Not really worried about it since Sony has their own VR in development.
Sword Art Online in the making.
damn, this is some alien technology I guess lol
First mainstream VR wont really take off IMO, hope im wrong but will be so many technical snafus. it still seeminly needs, pc or some sort of console to be plugged into to take it to next level which makes it a console plus 300-400 more for rift. MEH
Really? Occulus Rift is too good for next-gen?