# Oculus Rift Confirmed To Be Not Supporting Consoles



## Kirito-kun (Nov 12, 2013)

http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...r-too-limited-for-what-we-re-planning-1198420

Palmer Luckey has all but denied the possibility of Oculus Rift supporting 8th gen consoles. This is what he had to say in a recent interview.

"Consoles are too limited for what we want to do. We're trying to make the best virtual reality device in the world and we want to continue to innovate and upgrade every year - continue making progress internally - and whenever we make big jumps we want to push that to the public."

Although there are rumours of Sony developing their own VR HMD, the Rift as of now is likely to be skipping the PS4 and Xbox One.

On a different note, Palmer has also stated in the same interview that the devices will be released in "months, not years". This points to a 2014 release for the device.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 12, 2013)

Just want to note that just because Sony is developing an HMD, doesn't mean it will support the PS4.  They've actually been in the HMD market for quite some time with their HMZ series that never made their way to their consoles.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 12, 2013)

So now there's a literal Rift between PC and consoles.

Cool beans.


----------



## Veho (Nov 12, 2013)

Is that a different way of saying "consoles don't want to support Oculus Rift  ;O; " because it needs software support for full functionality. 

I'm not surprised about PS4, Sony is working on their own VR headset (or so they say), so it's normal that they don't want someone else butting in on their console, but whoever is responsible for foregoing the opportunity to combine Rift with the Kinect should be _flogged_


----------



## Duo8 (Nov 12, 2013)

Veho said:


> whoever is responsible for foregoing the opportunity to* combine Rift with the Kinect* should be _flogged_


 
Not a good idea. You won't be able to see your surroundings with Rift on.


----------



## Veho (Nov 12, 2013)

Duo8 said:


> Not a good idea.


Why?


----------



## Duo8 (Nov 12, 2013)

Veho said:


> Why?


 


Duo8 said:


> Not a good idea. You won't be able to see your surroundings with Rift on.


 
Therefore, you might hit something. Maybe you'll trip over your table. Maybe you'll punch in the wall or something.

On a side note, consoles don't really need VR goggles.


----------



## Veho (Nov 12, 2013)

You added that last part after I posted.    

Sure, with Oculus you won't be able to see your surroundings. But with Kinect you don't give a shit about your surroundings anyway (leading to so many amusing Youtube videos). After you slap the chandelier a few times you learn to stop flailing madly. Just because a few idiots would punch a wall (or family member) doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. Was the Wiimote a bad idea because people threw them at their TVs or slapped someone while playing? 

Oculus Rift is a way to see virtual reality, and the new Kinect is a great way to interact with that virtual reality, and no amount of idiots walking into walls will change that.


----------



## Duo8 (Nov 12, 2013)

Veho said:


> You added that last part after I posted.
> 
> Sure, with Oculus you won't be able to see your surroundings. But with Kinect you don't give a shit about your surroundings anyway (leading to so many amusing Youtube videos). After you slap the chandelier a few times you learn to stop flailing madly. Just because a few idiots would punch a wall (or family member) doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. Was the Wiimote a bad idea because people threw them at their TVs or slapped someone while playing?
> 
> Oculus Rift is a way to see virtual reality, and the new Kinect is a great way to interact with that virtual reality, and no amount of idiots walking into walls will change that.


 
Well. Better clean my room and move everything out I guess.


----------



## Hells Malice (Nov 12, 2013)

*Insert PC master race comment bashing dirty console peasants*



Veho said:


> You added that last part after I posted.
> 
> Sure, with Oculus you won't be able to see your surroundings. But with Kinect you don't give a shit about your surroundings anyway (leading to so many amusing Youtube videos). After you slap the chandelier a few times you learn to stop flailing madly. Just because a few idiots would punch a wall (or family member) doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. Was the Wiimote a bad idea because people threw them at their TVs or slapped someone while playing?
> 
> Oculus Rift is a way to see virtual reality, and the new Kinect is a great way to interact with that virtual reality, and no amount of idiots walking into walls will change that.


 

Except with a screen strapped to your face with no way to see your surroundings it could be very easy to lose where you are during a game. It's not just a matter of flailing around like an idiot or not.
There could be some very simple uses, but unless you want to pet virtual kittens and bake virtual cakes I don't see it being a great idea for proper use.


----------



## Veho (Nov 12, 2013)

Duo8 said:


> Well. Better clean my room


That is always prudent, regardless of gaming peripherals.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 12, 2013)

So, erm...what WILL the rift be supporting, then? "PC only" is kind of broad...is this just windows machines, or macs as well. And what about these steam machines?


----------



## Etheboss (Nov 12, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> So, erm...what WILL the rift be supporting, then? "PC only" is kind of broad...is this just windows machines, or macs as well. And what about these steam machines?


They are working on an android version too as far as i know..

EDIT: only works with PC based hardware and a windows OS, so i would say NO to Apple pc's,laptops,tablets too, and prolly not on steambox because it runs on linux if i am correct.


----------



## paulie (Nov 12, 2013)

I think it is more a question of what devices will be supporting the rift.
Yesterday I had my first hands on experience with a oculus rift, and I was under the impression that it simply got some video input from the PC (windows 7 in my case), meaning that virtually every device that can deliver the correct video input is capable of supporting the rift.
Although the graphics were really shitty in the demo I got (it was used for a psychological experiment) I was really impressed by how well it responded on my head movements.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 12, 2013)

paulie said:


> I think it is more a question of what devices will be supporting the rift.
> Yesterday I had my first hands on experience with a oculus rift, and I was under the impression that it simply got some video input from the PC (windows 7 in my case), meaning that virtually every device that can deliver the correct video input is capable of supporting the rift.
> Although the graphics were really shitty in the demo I got (it was used for a psychological experiment) I was really impressed by how well it responded on my head movements.


 
The video input is part of it, but the rift also has built in motion-sensing with gyroscopes, accelerometers, and a magnetometer.  If you want your head movements to matter, then the device you are connecting to needs to interact with those.


----------



## tbgtbg (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm still waiting for the Sega VR.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 15, 2013)

tbgtbg said:


> I'm still waiting for the Sega VR.


 
You can't really compare VR devices back in the 90s to what's currently being developed.

VR died out in the 90s because the technology wasn't there to deliver a satisfactory experience. We now have high-resolution LCDs, accurate motion tracking, and better optics. The reception of the Rift dev kits have also been very positive. If Oculus VR and all the other startups trying to push into VR don't do anything stupid, VR's here to stay this time around.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 15, 2013)

PC accessory confirmed to not support consoles... wow, good job Columbus - this must be a discovery of the decade!


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 15, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> PC accessory confirmed to not support consoles... wow, good job Columbus - this must be a discovery of the decade!


 
Originally, Oculus VR said although not a priority, they are interested in the possibility of bring the Oculus to consoles. Now, not so much.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 15, 2013)

And this is a loss?


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> And this is a loss?


 
The Oculus Rift is one of the most innovative gaming peripherals created in the past several years. The device's Kickstarter was funded over 900 percent, meaning significant community support and confirming that a market exists for such a device. As well, it won this year's Golden Joystick award for innovation and was praised by various gaming and technology sites.

Looking at the device itself, it delivers the most immersive experience of any consumer-level gaming device. It displays gameplay in stereoscopic 3D with a very high field-of-view of over 110 degrees and has a low-latency 1000 Hz motion tracker. As this field of view approaches the maximum field of view of each human eye, the result is total visual immersion. The consumer version will also have a 1080p display. There are potential gaming possibilities on this device which could not be replicated on a monitor or TV.

Basically, consoles are taking a pretty big lose by not supporting this device. There's probably people that originally funded the Rift on Kickstarter who converted to PC gaming when they found out that the Rift is a PC exclusive.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 16, 2013)

I know for Sony, they're gonna try to make their own HMD the standard as it had been in the past before the Oculus flipped the market on it's head.  When they were introduced to the Oculus, they wanted to hire Palmer to do R&D for them, but he preferred to make a go of it himself.

Microsoft is another company I'd expect to want to do it themselves if they had any interest.  The origin story for the Wii actually goes back to this idea where the technology for the Wii's controller was first pitched to Microsoft but the reception was really negative and they said that if they wanted motion controls, they'd do it themselves and do it better.  Maybe they've learned from that incident, but maybe not.

Nintendo probably would be the most likely to embrace the Oculus as they've shown the willingness to work with garage-inventors like Palmer when they jumped on the opportunity that Microsoft reacted negatively to.  Nintendo has also been shown to be interested in the technology in the past when they tried back in the day with the Virtual Boy, but the technology just wasn't there (much like the Power Glove).  But Nintendo keeps looking for the appropriate time to make use of these technologies even if it's decades later.  For instance, they were looking to incorporate 3D into the gamecube, but it just wasn't feasible at the time, but finally found the right time and place for it with the 3DS.  I also happen to know that Nintendo was in talks with an American company that deals in Augmented Reality as recently as last year, and although nothing came of those talks, it shows they could be interested in this kind of technology and they're willing to work with outsiders.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Basically, consoles are taking a pretty big lose by not supporting this device.


 
Highly doubt that.

Say this generation there's 80 million consoles sold for each of the consoles. No loss.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 16, 2013)

The thing isn't even out, yet we have people crying about it?  I mean once it is out and people really like it, then yeah some people might be disappointed to see it is not on console. Before that though, that's called jumping to conclusion.

Sony and Microsoft will most likely come up with their own VR implementation than relying on Oculus Rift. Steam and Nintendo are somewhat more embrace to third-party accessories.

In any cases, lots of people are still buying console. With or without Ocululs Rift. The idea that console are taking a big loss is nothing but a myth.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> The thing isn't even out, yet we have people crying about it?  I mean once it is out and people really like it, then yeah some people might be disappointed to see it is not on console. Before that though, that's called jumping to conclusion.
> 
> Sony and Microsoft will most likely come up with their own VR implementation than relying on Oculus Rift. Steam and Nintendo are somewhat more embrace to third-party accessories.
> 
> In any cases, lots of people are still buying console. With or without Ocululs Rift. The idea that console are taking a big loss is nothing but a myth.


 
Well, the dev kits are out, and the reaction has been very positive.

Also, when has Nintendo embraced 3rd party accessories, especially accessories which drastically changes the gaming experience?




grossaffe said:


> Paraphrasing "Nintendo might embrace the Rift"


 
The Wii U is really not powerful enough to drive the Rift. The reason Palmer doesn't want to support the PS4 Xbone is because the hardware isn't good enough (so he says). I doubt the Wii U will fare any better in that category.

On the other hand, Palmer says in the interview that their company is "good friends" with Valve, so Steam integration is very possible.



ShadowSoldier said:


> Highly doubt that.
> 
> Say this generation there's 80 million consoles sold for each of the consoles. No loss.


 
You know the market projection for this generation predicts less consoles sold this generation than last generation, right? The reason the total number of consoles sold is so high last gen is because of the Wii and how it drew in a lot of causal gamers. The Wii U... well... no one's buying it right now. And that's even before you consider the effect of the Rift. Even if the Rift has little effect on the market, replicating the success of the 7th gen consoles will be difficult.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> You know the market projection for this generation predicts less consoles sold this generation than last generation, right? The reason the total number of consoles sold is so high last gen is because of the Wii and how it drew in a lot of causal gamers. The Wii U... well... no one's buying it right now. And that's even before you consider the effect of the Rift. Even if the Rift has little effect on the market, replicating the success of the 7th gen consoles will be difficult.


 
And yet analysts predicted that Nintendo would fail with the 3DS and that it's the end of the company, that the Vita would outsell the "outdated, weak hardware of the 3DS", and that the Wii wouldn't be able to sell compared to the PS3/360 because it isn't HD or have the big games.


----------



## DJ91990 (Nov 16, 2013)

I'm actually glad that the Oculus Rift won't support consoles. Consoles have enough peripherals the way it is. Give the PC a KICK-ASS exclusive peripheral!
I wait the day when the company starts GIVING THEM AWAY! I heard a rumor that eventually they plain on giving the Oculus away to users, don't know how legit that is. I DO know that John Carmack, who was suposta be working "full time" for Bethesda according to Bethesda, is actually working on the Oculus. LUL, silly Bethesta.

Knowing that Carmack is one of the lead devs of the Oculus, that gives me hopes for mods for it. Just about every game Carmack made had some sort of mod software.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> And yet analysts predicted that Nintendo would fail with the 3DS and that it's the end of the company, that the Vita would outsell the "outdated, weak hardware of the 3DS", and that the Wii wouldn't be able to sell compared to the PS3/360 because it isn't HD or have the big games.


 
Yes, but all those console which succeeded succeeded for a reason. Wii because of casuals. 3DS because of cheap price compared to the Vita (Vita even have additional cost of memory cards) and better game library compared to the Vita. Can you think of a single reason why the Wii U will manage to surpass that sales of the PS4 or Xbox One? Cause I can't.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Well, the dev kits are out, and the reaction has been very positive.
> 
> Also, when has Nintendo embraced 3rd party accessories, especially accessories which drastically changes the gaming experience?


The Wiimote. The Wiimotion plus. The motion controller technology was pitched to them by a garage-inventor who had already been turned down by Microsoft and Sony.





> The Wii U is really not powerful enough to drive the Rift. The reason Palmer doesn't want to support the PS4 Xbone is because the hardware isn't good enough (so he says). I doubt the Wii U will fare any better in that category.
> 
> On the other hand, Palmer says in the interview that their company is "good friends" with Valve, so Steam integration is very possible.


First, I was not trying to say that they would embrace the rift, but rather they are the only one of the big three that seems like they would consider it given their respective histories. Integration into this generation just wasn't going to happen; these consoles were already long in development by the time Palmer showed the Oculus Rift to the world. Whenever a new technology is going to become an integral part of the console, it the console really needs to be designed with it in mind. Look at how the Wii succeeded by focusing on motion controls during development, and how much forcing in motion controls failed for Sony and Microsoft when they tried to implement it when they didn't have them in mind for those consoles from the start.

As for his friendship with Valve, I do know that Valve is very interested in the Oculus. Gabe Newell also tried to hire Palmer for R&D because he absolutely loved the Rift. Unlike Sony, Valve wasn't already in the hardware/HMD market, so he has no qualms with utilizing the Rift once Palmer decided to go about this on his own. Gabe's also very interested in wearable computing, and the Rift is the perfect display mechanism for a computer that you wear.



DJ91990 said:


> I'm actually glad that the Oculus Rift won't support consoles. Consoles have enough peripherals the way it is. Give the PC a KICK-ASS exclusive peripheral!
> I wait the day when the company starts GIVING THEM AWAY! I heard a rumor that eventually they plain on giving the Oculus away to users, don't know how legit that is. I DO know that John Carmack, who was suposta be working "full time" for Bethesda according to Bethesda, is actually working on the Oculus. LUL, silly Bethesta.
> 
> Knowing that Carmack is one of the lead devs of the Oculus, that gives me hopes for mods for it. Just about every game Carmack made had some sort of mod software.


 
According to John Carmack:
'Oculus over Id over Armadillo. Busy busy busy!'


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> First, I was not trying to say that they would embrace the rift, but rather they are the only one of the big three that seems like they would consider it given their respective histories. Integration into this generation just wasn't going to happen; these consoles were already long in development by the time Palmer showed the Oculus Rift to the world. Whenever a new technology is going to become an integral part of the console, it the console really needs to be designed with it in mind. Look at how the Wii succeeded by focusing on motion controls during development, and how much forcing in motion controls failed for Sony and Microsoft when they tried to implement it when they didn't have them in mind for those consoles from the start.


 
But that's the exact problem. The upcoming generation of consoles aren't going to support the Rift. If the Rift takes off, that could have an affect on console sales, with people choosing PC gaming instead so they'd be able to experience the Rift.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 16, 2013)

I 





Kirito-kun said:


> But that's the exact problem. The upcoming generation of consoles aren't going to support the Rift. If the Rift takes off, that could have an affect on console sales, with people choosing PC gaming instead so they'd be able to experience the Rift.


 
I don't think that will be an issue. A lot of people still haven't even heard of the Oculus Rift at this point (I'm majoring in Computer Engineering and a lot of my peers who should be on top of this kind of thing hadn't heard of it), and with the Wii U and PS4 out and the XBone to be released next week, they'll be out there before the Rift would start to have a big effect on people's decisions. Also, the Oculus Rift is doubtful to cost less than, say, $300, so it's primary market will be the people who drop a thousand dollars or so into a PC rather than people who spend $300-500 on the console itself.


----------



## Hop2089 (Nov 16, 2013)

After what I seen what the oculus rift could do I see one reason why it won't be on consoles.  Sony, MS, and Nintendo wouldn't want anything to do with a device that could be potentially used as a sex toy/waifu screwer, they have a reputation to uphold.


----------



## nando (Nov 16, 2013)

So people pretty much have to buy new hardware every year to keep up with hardware.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 16, 2013)

nando said:


> So people pretty much have to buy new hardware every year to keep up with hardware.


 
That's PC gaming for you.


----------



## Veho (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> The Wii U is really not powerful enough to drive the Rift. The reason Palmer doesn't want to support the PS4 Xbone is because the hardware isn't good enough (so he says). I doubt the Wii U will fare any better in that category.


Mobile phones are powerful enough to support Rift, so I'm gonna call bullshit on his statement.


----------



## KingBlank (Nov 16, 2013)

Whew, Im glad that did not happen. 720p right up in your face while controlling with an analog stick would have been horrible.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

nando said:


> So people pretty much have to buy new hardware every year to keep up with hardware.



Not unless you already own a PC, which PC gamers by definition already do.



Veho said:


> Mobile phones are powerful enough to support Rift, so I'm gonna call bullshit on his statement.



The Tegra 5 SoC (400 GFLOPS), set to release early 2014, is confirmed to be more powerful than the Wii U. The Tegra 6 (800 GFLOPS), set to release late 2014 is set to approach the power of the Xbox One. A couple more years down the road, mobile will surpass consoles.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Not unless you already own a PC, which PC gamers by definition already do.
> 
> The Tegra 5 SoC (400 GFLOPS), set to release early 2014, is confirmed to be more powerful than the Wii U. The Tegra 6 (800 GFLOPS), set to release late 2014 is set to approach the power of the Xbox One. A couple more years down the road, mobile will surpass consoles.


Except this is not about future phones, it's about contemporary ones - your comment is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Except this is not about future phones, it's about contemporary ones - your comment is completely irrelevant.



Tegra 4 - 100 GFLOPS (mid 2013)

Tegra 5 - 400 GFLOPS (early 2014)

Tegra 6 - 800 GFLOPS (late 2014)

Tegra 7 - (projected) 1600 GFLOPS (early 2015)

PS4: 1840 GFLOPS

Tegra 8 - (projected) 3200 GFLOPS (late 2015)


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Tegra 4 - 100 GFLOPS (mid 2013)
> 
> Tegra 5 - 400 GFLOPS (early 2014)
> 
> ...


 
Please read up about so-called _"dark silicon"_ which will explain to you why these projections are bullshit. Continue posting off-topic and face reports. 


Foxi4 said:


> Except this is *not about future phones*, it's about *contemporary ones* - your comment is *completely irrelevant*.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Please read up about so-called _"dark silicon"_ which will explain to you why these projections are bullshit. Continue posting off-topic and face reports.


 
People would have though it was BS going from Tegra 4 to Tegra 5 with a 4x increase in power before Nvidia confirmed. Also, you changed your initial reply, you said originally it was invalid because the PS4 is more powerful than the Wii U.

And don't forget that on the CPU side, mobile is already halfway between the Wii U and PS4. CPU also contributes to gaming performance.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> People would have though it was BS going from Tegra 4 to Tegra 5 with a 4x increase in power before Nvidia confirmed. Also, you changed your initial reply, you said originally it was invalid because the PS4 is more powerful than the Wii U.
> 
> And don't forget that on the CPU side, mobile is already halfway between the Wii U and PS4. CPU also contributes to gaming performance.


The reason why the switch from Tegra 4 to Tegra 5 yeilded such a huge performance increase was that the chip architecture was completely replaced with a _"mobile"_ version of a PC GPU - this fast pace of progress is going to slow down whether you like it or not.

Additionally, like I explained to you a quadrillion of times, the GPU's will not run at their maximum values when placed in an actual mobile implementation - they're going to run at half the speed at best because you can't implement fans or radiators into thin mobile devices.

You're getting excited over results reached in a laboratory environment - your pocket is not a laboratory.

The truth of the matter is that the only thing the Oculus requires to run is multi-monitor support - that's it. It's not resource-hungry, so let's not pretend that computing power is the issue here because it isn't.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The truth of the matter is that the only thing the Oculus requires to run is multi-monitor support - that's it. It's not resource-hungry, so let's not pretend that computing power is the issue here because it isn't.


 
The Oculus requires the video output to be in stereoscopic 3D at 60 FPS and at a high resolution to prevent headaches. PS4 and Xbox One struggle and sometimes fail to output 2D visuals at 1080p and 60 FPS. So it's probably the issue here, unless you have an alternative?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> The Oculus requires the video output to be in stereoscopic 3D at 60 FPS and at a high resolution to prevent headaches. PS4 and Xbox One struggle and sometimes fail to output 2D visuals at 1080p and 60 FPS. So it's probably the issue here, unless you have an alternative?


 
You do realize that the stereoscopy effect is easy to achieve for the Oculus since the two resulting sources are at a smaller resolution, the framerate _isn't_ fixed to 60 as you claim and 1080p isn't required? 

The Oculus Rift accepts images to two displays, it runs at 640x480x2, which is the equivalent of a single display running at 1280x978, which is significantly _less_ than 1080p _(1920×1080)_. Both the PS4 and the XBox One can render in this resolution in-between naps.

You're also acting as if stereoscopic 3D was a huge power drain - it isn't, it's just displacing one of the displays a little to produce the illusion of depth. The PS3 does it, the 3DS does it, for some reason you're imagining that next gen's can't.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You do realize that the stereoscopy effect is easy to achieve for the Oculus since the two resulting sources are at a smaller resolution, the framerate _isn't_ fixed to 60 as you claim and 1080p isn't required?
> 
> The Oculus Rift renders at 640x480x2, which is the equivalent of 1280x978, which is _less_ than 1080p _(1920×1080)_. Both the PS4 and the XBox One can render in this resolution in-between naps.


 
People report headaches while using the Rift at sub-60 FPS at any extended amount of time. And that's just the dev-kit which is sub-1080p. The low resoltion of the dev kit is something people complained about. The consumer version is confirmed to be in full 1080p, with a 4K variant coming soon. I'd really like to see the consoles try to drive a 4K panel.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> People report headaches while using the Rift at sub-60 FPS at any extended amount of time. And that's just the dev-kit which is sub-1080p. The low resoltion of the dev kit is something people complained about. The consumer version is confirmed to the in full 1080p, with a 4K variant coming soon. I'd really like to see the consoles try to drive a 4K panel.


 
It's called_ built-in scaler_. You don't need to render at 4K to display 4K.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It's called_ built-in scaler_. You don't need to render at 4K to display 4K.


 
720p video up-scaled on a 4K panel is just as pixelated as 720p video on a 720p panel. If people complained about the low resolution of the Rift dev kit, they'll complain just as much with 720p output on a 4K Rift.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> 720p video up-scaled on a 4K panel is just as pixelated as 720p video on a 720p panel. If people complained about the low resolution of the Rift dev kit, they'll complain just as much with 720p output on a 4K Rift.


 
I can't wait till the world will stop collectively circle-jerking about two LCD displays stuck in a headset, because that's all the Oculus Rift is. It's not a massive breakthrough in graphics, it's just an application of well-known technology with considerably better parts.

As I mentioned earlier, as it stands today, both mobile phones and consoles have enough _"juice"_ to support it, plain and simple. You're free to disagree with me if you like, but the facts speak against you' I'm afraid.

All the XBox One and the PS4 would have to do to reach the 1080p requirement would be rendering for two displays - no more, no less. It wouldn't be rocket science. If Oculus users _"feel sick"_ at sub-60FPS then they have to be violently vomiting in cinemas which run movies at 24FPS _(recently also 48FPS, but people complain about that)_. They're feeling sick because the display is right in their face, not due to the framerate.


----------



## Duo8 (Nov 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I can't wait till the world will stop collectively circle-jerking about two LCD displays stuck in a headset, because that's all the Oculus Rift is.


 
There's some optics and gyro as well.


Foxi4 said:


> it's just an application of well-known technology with considerably better parts.


 
So are most consumer products.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 16, 2013)

Duo8 said:


> There's some optics and gyro as well. _(...) _So are most consumer products.


That's not my point. Kirito-PC-MASTER-RACE-kun appears to be under the impression that this thing requires a supercomputer to run - it doesn't, which is what I'm explaining.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 16, 2013)

Veho said:


> Mobile phones are powerful enough to support Rift, so I'm gonna call bullshit on his statement.


 
The question is not if they can handle the graphical distortion so that the Rift can be used, but whether they provide the ideal output quality for virtual reality.  Resolution and frame-rate (and latency, but I don't think that's the issue here) become much more important when dealing with virtual reality versus TV.  Basically, you are going to want 1080p resolution at a constant 60 frames per second at the minimum.  The hardware for these consoles is set in stone, so whatever basically for the next 5-7 years, they'll be stuck at the current hardware levels and most of the games on them will not be capable of meeting the resolution and framerate requirements.

As for Mobile Phones, while John Carmack did say that Android could be in the future of the Oculus Rift, I seem to recall being told that it would be several years away.  At least if they worked on Android support now, even if it wasn't the ideal platform currently, the work would not be put to waste as newer more capable hardware came to the android platform.  With consoles, however, they'd pretty much have to start over again when the next generation decided to come out that would finally be ideal for the Oculus.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 16, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> The Oculus requires the video output to be in stereoscopic 3D at 60 FPS and at a high resolution to prevent headaches. PS4 and Xbox One struggle and sometimes fail to output 2D visuals at 1080p and 60 FPS. So it's probably the issue here, unless you have an alternative?


 
You're basing the "ps4 and xbox one struggle" statement based on launch games. That isn't an accurate assessment at all. You gotta let developers get used to the hardware. I mean look what happened, people thought Perfect Dark Zero was fantastic and games couldn't look better. Couple years down the road, and everybody was proven wrong.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 17, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> You're basing the "ps4 and xbox one struggle" statement based on launch games. That isn't an accurate assessment at all. You gotta let developers get used to the hardware. I mean look what happened, people thought Perfect Dark Zero was fantastic and games couldn't look better. Couple years down the road, and everybody was proven wrong.


 
It's because with the beginning of every generation of consoles, the devs aren't used to coding for the new hardware, as consoles have always had exotic architectures. This generation, the consoles are both x86 based, meaning programming techniques aren't much different from PC game development (ie: no cell processor to learn). No excuses this time.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> It's because with the beginning of every generation of consoles, the devs aren't used to coding for the new hardware, as consoles have always had exotic architectures. This generation, the consoles are both x86 based, meaning programming techniques aren't much different from PC game development (ie: no cell processor to learn). No excuses this time.


 
Yes.. there is an excuse.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> It's because with the beginning of every generation of consoles, the devs aren't used to coding for the new hardware, as consoles have always had exotic architectures. This generation, the consoles are both x86 based, meaning programming techniques aren't much different from PC game development (ie: no cell processor to learn). No excuses this time.


 
That's a load of bollocks, likely coming from someone who's never coded anything at all and/or knows very little about how it's done.

Console games have been programmed in standardized languages, most notably C and C++, on pre-made SDK's since the fifth generation, meaning for the last 16-17 years. With the rise of DirectX and OpenGL, customized graphics libraries became a thing of the past as well.

_"Exotic architectures"_ had _f*ck-all_ to do with the actual process of programming a video game, platform-specific functionality was always given appropriate wrappers to avoid using microcode at all costs and _"finding out about them"_ was a matter of studying a couple examples and reading through the SDK's manual to learn some key functions and addresses - not rocket science. The only _"exotic-ness"_ of console development comes from using _"console SDK's"_ which have _"console function sets"_, but this has nothing to do with the architecture used.

The only instances when microcode _was_ used was when the coders wanted to squeeze some extra performance or use some hardware functionality that the makers of the SDK didn't think of, this is the case with Rareware's Nintendo 64 games. Sony took it a little too far with the CELL by pretty much forcing coders to write microcode for SPE's. They did not respond favorably, mostly because _they never had to do this before_ and the SDK was gradually being updated to move away from this approach or simplify it which brought _better_ games in the long run.

A change in the architecture is not changing anything at all - x86_64 can also accept microcode and _will_ accept microcode if the developers see fit to use it. You're talking as if consoles were some weird unicorns in comparison to other devices when they really aren't. The use of a PC-like architecture doesn't change the status quo - Mac coders didn't use microcode and yet they coded for computers based on the _"exotic"_ PowerPC architecture, smartphone coders didn't _(and don't)_ use microcode very often and yet they coded for devices based on _"exotic" _MIPS and ARM chips. On the other end of the spectrum we have NO$GBA which is a DS emulator written almost exclusively in x86 Assembly.

Console coders do because console coders have to keep up with the times without the option to upgrade the hardware.

Moreover, both the XBox One's and the PlayStation 4's APU's have built-in customized silicon just like any other console does and these custom CPU components will result in custom features, differentiating the systems from the PC standard. All that changed was the architecture, not the approach.


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Nov 17, 2013)

Im fine with playing my games on my big o'l dino T.V. Either way i ware glasses so it would be weird to have a field of view that big and taking off my glasses would make every thing look like lifes resolution lowered its self.
Even if the ps4 or xbox are similar to pc architecture, isn't it different because on a pc you code one game and if your hardware is good enough you can run it on all pc's 
but with consoles such as ps4 something else has to be done. Either way i dont know and don't care about this, maybe this will be a bigger thing in the future for every one but there are other things worth focusing on more.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a load of bollocks, likely coming from someone who's never coded anything at all and/or knows very little about how it's done.
> 
> Console games have been programmed in standardized languages, most notably C and C++, on pre-made SDK's since the fifth generation, meaning for the last 16-17 years. With the rise of DirectX and OpenGL, customized graphics libraries became a thing of the past as well.
> 
> ...


 
Firstly, I have moderate programming knowledge in C#, Java, and Python *under Windows and Linux*. I'm not a console developer and haven't spent time looking into console development as my opinion of the platform is quite negative.

Yes, the upcoming consoles do not have completely standard PC silicon. However, their ISAs should be significantly similar to that of x86 PCs. If the devs want to write low-level code, it would be much easier than doing so on the PS3, when they were first introduced to the Cell. From my knowledge, console devs do often write low-level code for better optimization, which explains why consoles are able to run games better than a PC with equivalent specs. The 8th gen systems would therefore take less time for to learn to optimize for the platform. This is why I'm assuming the launch titles are already fairly well optimized, therefore demonstrating the weakness of the hardware due to poor performance in launch titles.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> This is why I'm assuming


 
No... you're judging this based off of launch titles, and cross generation titles.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Firstly, I have moderate programming knowledge in C#, Java, and Python *under Windows and Linux*. I'm not a console developer and haven't spent time looking into console development as my opinion of the platform is quite negative.
> 
> Yes, the upcoming consoles do not have completely standard PC silicon. However, their ISAs should be significantly similar to that of x86 PCs. If the devs want to write low-level code, it would be much easier than doing so on the PS3, when they were first introduced to the Cell. From my knowledge, console devs do often write low-level code for better optimization, which explains why consoles are able to run games better than a PC with equivalent specs. The 8th gen systems would therefore take less time for to learn to optimize for the platform. This is why I'm assuming the launch titles are already fairly well optimized, therefore demonstrating the weakness of the hardware due to poor performance in launch titles.


 
You mention optimization in your code, and yes, that is one of the instances when microcode is used _and_ one of the reasons why launch games always had poor performance on _any platform in the history of ever_ - because the SDK-specific functionality _and_ the microcode have to be mastered to efficiently optimize for a given platform. Developers do not have any practice whatsoever with the SDK's yet, hence performance is _"basic"_ - it can be boosted.

You also equate the next gen systems to PC's again, thinking that this helps matters - it doesn't. The low-level code will be similar to that on a PC, but that doesn't mean that developers will have no problems optimizing the games simply because PC's were never _the primary target_ for developers - more often than not, cross-platform releases are _not_ optimized for PC, rather copy-pasted into the compiler for the sake of a quick release. Developers will have to learn how to microcode on x86_64 because they never had to do it before.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 17, 2013)

Also, launch games are usually made on a very short, tight schedule in order to meet the launch deadline. Take the Wii U's launch; if I remember correctly, some of those titles were made in nine months or so.

Pretty graphics are great, but developers don't have much time for optimization. They just have to get the thing into shippable shape as quickly as possible.

I mean, I know it's fun to shit on, say, the Xbone's launch titles (like Dead Rising 3 not even reaching 30 fps, constantly falling to 16 fps), but it's hardly fair. Now, if Xbox One titles continue to have this problem 1-2 years after launch, then yeah, we have a serious problem. Until then, it's a tad bit too early to start digging the grave.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Also, launch games are usually made on a very short, tight schedule in order to meet the launch deadline. Take the Wii U's launch; if I remember correctly, some of those titles were made in nine months or so.
> 
> Pretty graphics are great, but developers don't have much time for optimization. They just have to get the thing into shippable shape as quickly as possible.
> 
> I mean, I know it's fun to shit on, say, the Xbone's launch titles (like Dead Rising 3 not even reaching 30 fps, constantly falling to 16 fps), but it's hardly fair. Now, if Xbox One titles continue to have this problem 1-2 years after launch, then yeah, we have a serious problem. Until then, it's a tad bit too early to start digging the grave.


 


Foxi4 said:


> You mention optimization in your code, and yes, that is one of the instances when microcode is used _and_ one of the reasons why launch games always had poor performance on _any platform in the history of ever_ - because the SDK-specific functionality _and_ the microcode have to be mastered to efficiently optimize for a given platform. Developers do not have any practice whatsoever with the SDK's yet, hence performance is _"basic"_ - it can be boosted.
> 
> You also equate the next gen systems to PC's again, thinking that this helps matters - it doesn't. The low-level code will be similar to that on a PC, but that doesn't mean that developers will have no problems optimizing the games simply because PC's were never _the primary target_ for developers - more often than not, cross-platform releases are _not_ optimized for PC, rather copy-pasted into the compiler for the sake of a quick release. Developers will have to learn how to microcode on x86_64 because they never had to do it before.


 
Pertaining to the topic of consoles running games at 1080p 60 FPS in the coming years, there's still a factor you forgot to look at. Games and game engines will become more demanding as time goes on. Better optimization may let consoles continue to run newer games with an equal amount of graphical fidelity, but it's not going to have such an impact that a game a few years down the road running on a more demanding engine and with more elements rendering at the same time will be able to achieve a higher framerate and resolution than earlier less-optimized games. The launch titles of the PS3/Xbox 360 were at 720p, so were most titles in the middle of it's lifespan, and titles towards the end of it's lifespan fell to sub-HD resolutions such as 600p.

The Rift needs 60 FPS to eliminate motion sickness, and Carmack implied that an even higher FPS would be ideal. 1080p at 60 FPS would be really stretching the capabilities of the machines no matter which part of their service cycle you look at. Sure, the machines will be able to run games with launch-title-level graphics a few years down the road at 1080p 60 FPS, but new games obviously become more graphically demanding as time goes on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Pertaining to the topic of consoles running games at 1080p 60 FPS in the coming years, there's still a factor you forgot to look at. Games and game engines will become more demanding as time goes on. Better optimization may let consoles continue to run newer games with an equal amount of graphical fidelity, but it's not going to have such an impact that a game a few years down the road running on a more demanding engine and with more elements rendering at the same time will be able to achieve a higher framerate and resolution than earlier less-optimized games. The launch titles of the PS3/Xbox 360 were at 720p, so were most titles in the middle of it's lifespan, and titles towards the end of it's lifespan fell to sub-HD resolutions such as 600p.
> 
> The Rift needs 60 FPS to eliminate motion sickness, and Carmack implied that an even higher FPS would be ideal. 1080p at 60 FPS would be really stretching the capabilities of the machines no matter which part of their service cycle you look at. Sure, the machines will be able to run games with launch-title-level graphics a few years down the road at 1080p 60 FPS, but new games obviously become more graphically demanding as time goes on.


You're assuming that 1080p @ 60FPS in 3D is in any way more demanding than 1080p @ 60FPS without 3D when that's not the case - you don't _need_ to render twice the scenes to create the effect of stereoscopy - what you actually do is use the information from the frame buffer, meaning you only ever use one frame to create the effect, you need marginally more resources. Even the weak PSP is perfectly capable of stereoscopy, albeit in cyan/red, not on a dual display, but that's only because it doesn't support more than one display - the actual image is stereoscopic. Stereoscopy doesn't stretch graphics capabilities of a system. In addition to that, as time passes by, coders will become more and more adept with the SDK. Not only that, the SDK itself will also improve with subsequent updates. All this will lead to steadier framerates.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You're assuming that 1080p @ 60FPS in 3D is in any way more demanding than 1080p @ 60FPS without 3D when that's not the case - you don't _need_ to render twice the scenes to create the effect of stereoscopy - what you actually do is use the information from the frame buffer, meaning you only ever use one frame to create the effect, you need marginally more resources. Even the weak PSP is perfectly capable of stereoscopy, albeit in cyan/red, not on a dual display, but that's only because it doesn't support more than one display - the actual image is stereoscopic. Stereoscopy doesn't stretch graphics capabilities of a system.


I don't see stereoscopy anywhere in his post.  I think it was purely about 1080p 60 FPS


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> I don't see stereoscopy anywhere in his post. I think it was purely about 1080p 60 FPS


We're talking about the Oculus Rift which uses stereoscopy, his point is that the Next Gens will be unable to keep up with 1080p at 60FPS when that's not the case - it's subject to coding practices, SDK improvements, used microcode etc.. He also says that game engines will become more and more demanding, which is very true, but those engines are created with the next gens in mind, hence they will support the features the developers plan to use, including higher framerates.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You're assuming that 1080p @ 60FPS in 3D is in any way more demanding than 1080p @ 60FPS without 3D when that's not the case - you don't _need_ to render twice the scenes to create the effect of stereoscopy - what you actually do is use the information from the frame buffer, meaning you only ever use one frame to create the effect, you need marginally more resources. Even the weak PSP is perfectly capable of stereoscopy, albeit in cyan/red, not on a dual display, but that's only because it doesn't support more than one display - the actual image is stereoscopic. Stereoscopy doesn't stretch graphics capabilities of a system, by no means.


 
I don't even mean in 3D. The consoles right now stand between 720p 60 FPS and 1080p 30 FPS. Optimization will increase over the years but this will in turn be cancelled out by more demanding games and game engines. Throughout this generation, consoles will likely be at either 720p at 60 FPS or 1080p at 30 FPS. Not ideal for VR. 720p causes the screen door effect, 30 FPS causes motion sickness. Pick your poison.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> We're talking about the Oculus Rift which uses stereoscopy, his point is that the Next Gens will be unable to keep up with 1080p at 60FPS when that's not the case - it's subject to coding practices, SDK improvements, used microcode etc.. He also says that game engines will become more and more demanding, which is very true, but those engines are created with the next gens in mind, hence they will support the features the developers plan to use, including higher framerates.


 
We shall see, but I do not expect to see very many 1080p 60 FPS games in this console generation.  Even if they get there at the very end, it's hardly worth getting the Rift to support it if it will only come into play at the end.  As for the Stereoscopy of the Rift, it actually uses a single display split down the middle with each eye using half, so it would still be a single 1080p image sent to a single display, but that picture would be two smaller pictures stitched side-by-side (with a barrel-distortion on each side to account for the fish-eye lenses)


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> I don't even mean in 3D. The consoles right now stand between 720p 60 FPS and 1080p 30 FPS. Optimization will increase over the years but this will in turn be cancelled out by more demanding games and game engines. Throughout this generation, consoles will likely be at either 720p at 60 FPS or 1080p at 30 FPS. Not ideal for VR. 720p causes the screen door effect, 30 FPS causes motion sickness. Pick your poison.


I actually choose playing on a massive TV screen - the Oculus Rift doesn't exactly tickle my jimmies. My point is that it _"can be done",_ not nearly as well as on a high-end PC, obviously, but it can be done. Consoles are not meant to match high-end PC's in performance though, they're supposed to be a low-cost alternative.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I actually choose playing on a massive TV screen


Playing Goldeneye, Rayman Origins/Legends, Mario Party, TimeSplitters future perfect on a tv sitting on a couch with friends all around the tv... pc gaming can never replicate that. LONG LIVE CONSOLES


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I actually choose playing on a massive TV screen - the Oculus Rift doesn't exactly tickle my jimmies. My point is that it _"can be done",_ not nearly as well as on a high-end PC, obviously, but it can be done. Consoles are not meant to match high-end PC's in performance though, they're supposed to be a low-cost alternative.


 
Have you seen some of the new games confirmed of be in development for the Rift? There are games being developed which I only can see working well with the Rift.





ShadowSoldier said:


> Playing Goldeneye, Rayman Origins/Legends, Mario Party, TimeSplitters future perfect on a tv sitting on a couch with friends all around the tv... pc gaming can never replicate that. LONG LIVE CONSOLES


 
Dolphin emulator, $0

Project64, $0

PCSX2, $0

Extra-long HDMI cable, $20

Four Logitech USB gamepads, $80

PC gaming just replicated that for $100


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Have you seen some of the new games confirmed of be in development for the Rift? There are games being developed which I only can see working well with the Rift.


 
That's a beautiful tech demo... that probably looks nothing like the final product, but I guess time will tell.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Dolphin emulator, $0
> 
> Project64, $0
> 
> ...


 
No it didn't. lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Dolphin emulator, $0
> Project64, $0
> PCSX2, $0
> Extra-long HDMI cable, $20
> ...


 
You forgot about the whole _"I gotta buy a gaming PC"_ part of the equation.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 17, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> No it didn't. lol.


 
Oh rly? How so? Playing consoles game via emulator on the TV with controllers. What else is missing?



Foxi4 said:


> You forgot about the whole _"I gotta buy a gaming PC"_ part of the equation.


 


trumpet-205 said:


> lol. You think it only cost $100 to run GC, N64, or PS2 games? Facepalm.
> 
> Not to mention that these emulators still have a long way to go. I.e. still have to use real PS2 if I want to use Tatacon controller.


 
Assuming you already own a PC as we're taking about PC gaming replicating console gaming. Dolphin and PJ64 are pretty close to perfect by now.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 17, 2013)

lol. You think it only cost $100 to run GC, N64, or PS2 games? Facepalm.

Not to mention that these emulators still have a long way to go. I.e. still have to use real PS2 if I want to use Tatacon controller, or pressure sensitive button.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Assuming you already own a PC as we're taking about PC gaming replicating console gaming.


 
Don't assume. Assuming makes an *ass* out of *u* and *me*.

If _I_ assume that I have a console already, I just need gamepads. Actually, if my friends have the system, I don't even need that... so...

It's $0 versus $100 for *the same thing?* Oh dear.


----------



## tbgtbg (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> You can't really compare VR devices back in the 90s to what's currently being developed.



You're not the boss of me.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Don't assume. Assuming makes an *ass* out of *u* and *me*.
> 
> If _I_ assume that I have a console already, I just need gamepads. Actually, if my friends have the system, I don't even need that... so...
> 
> It's $0 versus $100 for *the same thing?* Oh dear.


 
At least you can get a console gaming expirence from a PC for $100. Try getting a PC gaming expirence from a console. You basically have to buy a complete PC gaming setup which is about $700 for mid-range.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> At least you can get a console gaming expirence from a PC for $100. Try getting a PC gaming expirence from a console. You basically have to buy a complete PC gaming setup which is about $700 for mid-range.


_Assuming_ you _want_ the PC gaming experience. Which is something you clearly don't want when opting for a console.

We're doing a lot of assuming today. 

If someone wants a PC gaming experience, he or she buys a PC. If someone wants a console gaming experience, he or she buys a console. I don't see how that's rocket science.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 17, 2013)

_


Foxi4 said:



			I don't see how that's rocket science.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
Let's just assume it is rocket science.


----------



## Kurt91 (Nov 17, 2013)

So, if I may ask for somebody to clarify this for me...

The Oculus Rift will not be supported by consoles. Does this mean just that the motion controls and gyroscopes will not work with them and that the headset itself can be used as an alternative to connecting to a television, or that even the display itself will not function and absolutely nothing will work? Up until now, I've been under the impression that even if I were to never use this as it's intended, I could always just set it up to work as a one-person wearable television set, using it just as a monitor to watch movies or play games. Am I correct in assuming this, or not?


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 17, 2013)

Kurt91 said:


> So, if I may ask for somebody to clarify this for me...
> 
> The Oculus Rift will not be supported by consoles. Does this mean just that the motion controls and gyroscopes will not work with them and that the headset itself can be used as an alternative to connecting to a television, or that even the display itself will not function and absolutely nothing will work? Up until now, I've been under the impression that even if I were to never use this as it's intended, I could always just set it up to work as a one-person wearable television set, using it just as a monitor to watch movies or play games. Am I correct in assuming this, or not?


 
Because of how the Oculus Rift works, you would technically still get a picture, but it would not be at all what you want.


----------



## Kurt91 (Nov 18, 2013)

I've never used one before, either at a presentation of the device or as a dev kit model. Would you mind explaining what I would get? I heard that it would just be like having a large screen in front of you that would display the image rather than like virtual reality. Kind of like a virtual movie theater.


----------



## Veho (Nov 18, 2013)

Kurt91 said:


> I've never used one before, either at a presentation of the device or as a dev kit model. Would you mind explaining what I would get? I heard that it would just be like having a large screen in front of you that would display the image rather than like virtual reality. Kind of like a virtual movie theater.


With software that supports the Rift, you would get actual virtual reality. It has built-in motion sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer), that track your head movement and orientation. In an application (video game, VR surrounding) with full Rift support, this allows you to look around you by turning your head. When you turn somewhere, the in-game camera turns that way too. Since each eye gets its own picture, you also get stereoscopic 3D. So you get virtual reality in 3D.


----------



## Kurt91 (Nov 19, 2013)

What? No, no, you misunderstood me. I know what happens when you use software that supports it. I'm asking, if I were to put on a headset and try to connect it to something that doesn't have the supporting software, what would I get? Would I be able to use it as a single-person monitor or television screen? If I were to try to connect it to something like a DVD player or to my computer and just turn on a media player, would I be able to watch a movie on it?


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 19, 2013)

Kurt91 said:


> What? No, no, you misunderstood me. I know what happens when you use software that supports it. I'm asking, if I were to put on a headset and try to connect it to something that doesn't have the supporting software, what would I get? Would I be able to use it as a single-person monitor or television screen? If I were to try to connect it to something like a DVD player or to my computer and just turn on a media player, would I be able to watch a movie on it?


 
No.  Your eyes would each be getting one half of a single distorted picture.  And I don't mean that the two halves would stitch together as you saw it to create one big picture, but rather your brain would be seeing conflicting images with each eye seeing something completely different.

A person _could_ potentially build a device that would convert normal image data into something rift-compatible by applying the necessary distortions to the image and then displaying the same image to each side of the screen.  If my senior design project goes as planned, that's a possibility for me to make in the future.


----------



## Veho (Nov 20, 2013)

Kurt91 said:


> What? No, no, you misunderstood me. I know what happens when you use software that supports it. I'm asking, if I were to put on a headset and try to connect it to something that doesn't have the supporting software, what would I get? Would I be able to use it as a single-person monitor or television screen? If I were to try to connect it to something like a DVD player or to my computer and just turn on a media player, would I be able to watch a movie on it?


Sorry, I misunderstood the question. 

Like grossaffe said, plugging the Rift into a device without support would give you a garbled image. The software distorts the video before sending it to the Rift, and the Rift then distorts in back. In order to use the Rift with devices without software Rift support (like a DVD player or a set-top box), you'd have to use a converter like grossaffe mentioned, or you'll get a distorted garbled image. That is the state of the current dev kit. The retail version might have a "standard video glasses" mod built-in or come with an optional converter box for that purpose, but I wouldn't hold my breath. 

That being said, there's software support available for Windows, Linux, iOS, and Android support is in development, and there are already several video player apps that let you watch movies or see your desktop on the Rift, either in "giant screen in front of you" mode (like standard video glasses), or displayed on a virtual screen inside a virtual movie theatre/room.


----------

