JetBlackPanda
Member
this is exactly what they want. I can't tell you how many people texted me yesterday to tell me how excited they were for the Rift on Xbone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Oculus Rift will have the ability to "stream Xbox One games" in "virtual cinema"
- Thread starter Macho Madness
- Start date
this is exactly what they want. I can't tell you how many people texted me yesterday to tell me how excited they were for the Rift on Xbone.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
i think goat simulator has it too
talking about the flappy bird clone in it?
Even though you have a poster a few pages back saying that he uses the feature to play games. It's weird seeing so many notable Sony fanboys in here.
revolverjgw
Member
You can play games in virtual rooms using vorpx, and it's completely pointless, it literally held my attention for 5 seconds.
Virtual theaters are kind of cool though, great sense of place and atmosphere, just too low res to be useful right now.
Virtual theaters are kind of cool though, great sense of place and atmosphere, just too low res to be useful right now.
Yep alot of people are confused by this and.think it's the full vr experience, I was seeing checkmate morpheus videos and.comments on YouTube
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
It's like remote playing to Vita, connecting Morpheus to the Vita, then playing in VR on a massive 2D version of the Vita screen in your VR living room.
It sounds AWESOME. Fuck shark cages.
OK, there's something I'm still not understanding about this and nobody seems to have said anything about this part without making the whole thing sound like a terrible idea. Why would anybody want to stream the image to just a portion of the available screen space which lowers the quality of the image instead of just using the full screen for the game?
I genuinely don't understand how lowering the quality of the image by shrinking it to a portion of the screen is appealing to anybody. If it was a matter of simply streaming to the headset without the virtual environment, although it's not an ideal solution, I can see the appeal but this just doesn't make any sense at all.
I genuinely don't understand how lowering the quality of the image by shrinking it to a portion of the screen is appealing to anybody. If it was a matter of simply streaming to the headset without the virtual environment, although it's not an ideal solution, I can see the appeal but this just doesn't make any sense at all.
Alx
Member
It's cool that the virtual screen is lighting the environment accordingly (not sure it's perfectly synced though).
M_A_C
Member
lol
SpongyRug10
Neo Member
This looks incredible! No visible lag & different theatre modes.
Theonik
Member
The issue is that it's a trade, you give up IQ with VR in exchange for presence. In this case you are also sacrificing latency in the process.Image quality is obviously not the appeal here, or you wouldn't be using VR to begin with. Although in theory you could display a screen with the same resolution as the original source, only it would be huge and you wouldn't be able to have it fit entirely in your field of view.
The problem is the experience you get in return isn't something that has long-term appeal. I cannot imagine a lot of people would try this more than a couple of times or show a few friends. Then again there are other appealing applications for something like this but the technology is lacking and is not really something you'd want to use the X1 for anyway. (Virtual lan parties.)
KillerSloth
Banned
We understand..it is expensive, convoluted, and a half assed solution for not having any real VR of their own. Nor will it take off in the consumer space.
Alx
Member
Not really, you may not even notice that the virtual guy sitting on your virtual couch has latency since his gestures don't need to be perfectly synced with what's happening on-screen.
TheWaxyPaxy
Neo Member
They're clearly focusing on the demographic that can't afford anything aesthetically pleasing in real life yet have enough money for 1st generation VR gear, give them a break.
Oh. My bad.
If Kaz Hirai or Miyamoto came on stage and professed this as a hot feature like P. Spencer did, the internet would have ripped it to shreds just as hard. That is because it is immediately apparent as a ridiculous way to play games if you just look past the novelty for a few seconds.
This is a gimmick feature. That's really what it is. And the novelty is probably real fun, I agree. I want to try it because I think VR is great and i'll give anything a shot because the sheer novelty of being in a virtual space hasn't worn off for me yet, and won't for a while.
But suggesting it as a legitimate and comfortable way to play games? Yeah, not going to happen. You'd sacrifice so much for so little benefit that it's not remotely worth it.
I find it funny the player tried to look into the turns.....nope.
SpongyRug10
Neo Member
You make it sound like its a mandatory feature. No idea why an optional feature is being bashed so hard. You want to play your XBOX games on an Oculus? Brilliant. You don't want to? Well, that's great too.
Preach!
How can you know that there is no lag?
Image quality is obviously not the appeal here, or you wouldn't be using VR to begin with. Although in theory you could display a screen with the same resolution as the original source, only it would be huge and you wouldn't be able to have it fit entirely in your field of view.
What exactly is the appeal then? You shouldn't be using VR at all if it's not actually VR. You are not using VR to sit in a virtual room for no reason, it's for the bigger screen, but then what is the point of the bigger screen when you get picture quality that is worse? You may aswell be sitting closer to your TV. It'll be the better experience.
I think most of it stems from the fact that Phil Spencer, head of Xbox felt the need to go up on stage with a ten-minute speech about the partnership between Xbox and OR, only to promote a very limited functionality that nobody really asked for. A feature that, when you think about it, is actually quite hilarious in an Xzibit/Inception kind of way.
It's clear though why they've done it, and the internet is already buzzing with people thinking you can use the Oculus Rift on the Xbox One and that it's Microsoft's answer to Vive and Morpheus. The inclusion of the feature is not a bad thing, not at all. But the way it was worded and announced, that's why this thread is so big and so entertaining.
Caesar III
Member
This is exactly what it will be like I guess. But why would you want that? Play the game in literally 800x600 or some other odd resolution. The screen of Oculus is 1200x1080 for the entire thing you see in the video (including the black box/bar). In killer instinct you can't read the names properly.
It's a nice gimmick imho, but that's it
ZehDon
Member
It's a neat feature, but I doubt this is going to catch on. I wonder how much Microsoft paid to get an Xbone controller and this attached to the Rift?
Yeah, I'm seeing the same thing. Microsoft got caught with their pants down once again, so they're trying to confuse the message to save mind-share. It's working, for now at least. I can't imagine it'll stay that way after E3.
1) It's so dumb it's funny.
2) VR is in a fragile state and needs nothing but good press this early on, not junk like this from Oculus/Microsoft/Facebook.
SpongyRug10
Neo Member
I can't see any. It's why I used the phrase 'No visible lag'. Doesn't mean there isn't, just that it wasn't visible to me. Additionally, I'd imagine that it's near impossible to play shooters like Halo & Sunset Overdrive that require pinpoint accuracy for optimal gameplay or a racing game that demands precise movements like Forza if lag is perceptible.
All conjecture, of course & largely dependent on various factors like bandwidth, capability of the PC streaming, wired or wireless connection to the console etc. We'll hopefully get hands on reviews from E3.
mangochutney
Member
The poster means, how would you know if there is lag?
You cannot see the original output to compare it against, nor are you inputting into a controller. It is literally impossible for you to tell if there is lag from that video.
This point I can't agree with. This is getting good press as with all impractical "cool" things that MS shows for marketing. This does not hurt VRs image, it's just a fairly useless gimmick that MS are using to market XB1 by attaching their name to VR in a silly way when XB1 is in no way VR ready. The big posters of the game name in that video above should show you that their motivation is marketing.
SpongyRug10
Neo Member
Excellent points. Oversimplifying big issues though. If a feature is dumb or not is a subjective matter, for starters. There's no universal scale for dumbness. Wearing a massive display on my head that precludes vision of my physical environment so that I can 'exist' in a virtual one sounds dumb. For true VR or pseudo VR like this streaming concept. Many still believe in the efficacy of the platform anyway, dumb or not dumb.
VR isn't in a 'fragile state'. It's not a damsel in distress in dire need of good press. Like any other platform before or after it, it will succeed or fail on its merits. The more merits or features it offers, the more likely the platform finds a killer app that helps push mainstream adoption.
Support the platform. If you think good press is what it'll take to ensure its success, bashing it and/or its features on a public forum is a weird way to go about it. This additional [optional] feature is one of many & many more to come.
slavesnyder
Member
Potemkin VR
Glitchesarecool
Member
Oculus will succeed or fail once we find out what the price is. If they've managed to make it consumer viable instead of enthusiast niche, then we'll maybe we'll have something.
Sevenfold
Member
InaudibleWhispa
Member
Man I bet they're regretting putting this in the conference. It seems to have dominated it (and left such a sour note that dictated the tone of the conference from that point on). 18 pages for such a small optional bulletpoint of a feature, and only 3-4 pages for their new controller which should have been the big news everyone was asking for. Oh well, you live and learn.
You shouldn't feel like that at all - unless you were playing a horribly designed game that made you feel like that while playing
It's more a case of the usage they are showing is shit - why would you have a virtual screen that practically emulates a boring room and screen of fairly meaningless size / dimensions. Curved screens or interesting environment may have made it more palatable as a concept but really, the main sell should have been interacting socially and syncing what you watch with others.
A rather amusing example is what was happening during the conference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW-8VeSEsP4
Sevenfold
Member
I'm struggling with this whole 2D game experience in a 3D space. The racing game she's playing is much more suited to a couch and TV, rather than VR. So I thought maybe it's just a bad example but I can't think of any game that would benefit from being played this way or even offering something akin to a good time. That weird bland room she's in would creep me out I think, it would certainly affect immersion and to me that's what VR is supposed to enhance.
I understand watching a movie on a massive screen in a cinema in VR and it's one of the experiences that I'm looking forward to, but gaming in a room in a room. Nah.
I'm hoping that we get some mind blowing stuff at E3. Oculus lit this fire and the hype train has been unstopable since but recently, after all the tech talk and the rise of the competition (which has been fascinating to watch) I'm ready for games. I've forgotten why I want VR, it isn't for movies, and it certainly isn't to play games in some strangers sparse depressing living room. E3...
I understand watching a movie on a massive screen in a cinema in VR and it's one of the experiences that I'm looking forward to, but gaming in a room in a room. Nah.
I'm hoping that we get some mind blowing stuff at E3. Oculus lit this fire and the hype train has been unstopable since but recently, after all the tech talk and the rise of the competition (which has been fascinating to watch) I'm ready for games. I've forgotten why I want VR, it isn't for movies, and it certainly isn't to play games in some strangers sparse depressing living room. E3...
SpongyRug10
Neo Member
Original output? I don't believe the stream is shown on multiple outputs in conjunction with the Rift display. With regards to input lag, I thinks it's possible to make inferences from gameplay. In the Halo segment, the player intends to kill a character, aims, and successfully carried out his/her intention. Same with turns in Forza. If lag is perceptible, would it not be highly improbable that the player would make kills or turns with pinpoint accuracy?
Not for me but YMMV. For me it's like blink and I'm in a movie theater, blink again and I'm in my house again.
On a side note I'm the type of person that would pay real money to go to a theater and play Mario Galaxy on a movie screen at 480. I'd probably sit there for as long as they let me, so being able to replicate that in my home is wonderful for me, resolution decrease and all.
Sanctuary
Member
I actually got to play SF2 on a movie screen before. The experience was unreal.
Now this is fucking dumb.
Simple immediate example I can think of - a multiplayer game with no local component, everyone plays in the same virtual space (despite being global), with their own screen but can interact and spectate when or when not playing. You could have a host that switches between video feeds to see what each person is doing.
Most of the systems that do this stuff now in VR are really rudimentary. There good stuff that can be done now but there is definitely a ton more that could be done. This is one of the things likely to happen with sports / esports broadcasting (as long as everyone has the appropriate service access).
While it's an optional feature, it's also the only reason for hooking up an Xbone to the Occulus. They literally showed no other selling points connecting the two products, thereby showing how little synergy there is between them.
In a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with adding a minor feature to a new product, but this sort of makes Occulus less attractive in comparison. And with something as exciting as Vive on the horizon, it's a product that's bleeding support from the VR enthusiasts.