Support NeoGAF

[FordGTGuy]

That's one of the worst gaming promotional shots I've ever seen.

It's not a gaming promotional shot.

 

[Nzyme32]

In case it hasn't been posted, the Verge give their impressions of the demo they used - http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7868251/microsoft-hololens-hologram-hands-on-experience

Basically, not as immersive as VR, but then again a completely different and great experience with the same stupid grin on your face. Interactions, similar to VR, are not there yet

 

[Raist]

So we can see the woman in the frame.

Why? We can clearly see what she does with her hands in the first part, so there's absolutely no need for a 3rd person view.

I guess it's technically true that one cannot count to zero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCCXZ8ErVag&t=4m29s

Her hand goes down, yet the spray can still magically moves around.

Their light engine is obviously markerless inside out positional tracking, it works as they describe. Its not their fault if you don't understand the tech.

This doesn't preclude other view points from also taking in the scene.

Look up how CastAR works. You need a reflective surface for the produced image to then be seen and processed by the headset.
If MS's thing does project "millions of photons" too, they have to bounce off something too to be returned in the proper and controlled way to the glasses. That can't happen in thin air. It's fucking physics.

That's great. What is your expertise in this field again?

I have a PhD in BeWaryofMSTechDemosology.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Well maybe the state of the technology can explain why:

- the shitty 10secs clip of that "thanks Windows 10!" guy was direct feed, yet for some reason when it comes to the meaty stuff, it swaps to a view from that massive camera on stage instead. Why are we not allowed to see from the woman's perspective anymore?

- countless times what happens during the building bits don't match at all what the woman's doing.

- we're told the technology is based on a "light engine" generating millions of photons boucing (off what? did they also reinvent physics?) that "make the magic happen" when it hits the right angle. Yet a camera with a completely different angle on the scene supposedly show us exactly what the woman is seeing.

I'm calling shenanigans on the whole thing. I strongly suspect it's kinect stage demo all over again, with less Cirque du Soleil.

Verge on Minecraft:

But before you can apply your jaded "I've done VR before" attitude to this situation, you look down at the coffee table and there's a castle sitting right on the damn thing. It's not shimmery, but it's not quite real either. It's just sitting there, perfectly flat on the table, reacting in space to your head movements as lifelike as the actual table. There's no lag at all, it's simply magic.

And you definitely have a big stupid grin on your face even through the contraption that's strapped to it is pressing your eyeglasses into the bridge of your nose in a painful way.

Then it's demo time, you lean how a "glance" is just you looking at things and pointing your reticle at them and an "AirTap" is the equivalent of clicking your mouse. You can't touch anything, but you can look and point a little circle at objects on it by moving your head around. The demo involves digging Minecraft holes and blowing up Minecraft zombies with Minecraft TNT. It's basically incredible to see these digital things in real space.

You blow up a hole in the table and then you can look through it to more digital objects on the floor. You blow up a hole in the wall and tiny bats fly out and you see that behind your very normal plan wall is a virtual hellscape of lava and rock. You peer into the hole, around the corner, and see that dark realm extend far into space.

On Skype:

On the other end of the call was a Microsoft engineer. I could see and hear her, but she could only hear me and see exactly what I was seeing in front of me. My eyes, or the headset on my head, was relaying everything over Skype. It was a support call of sorts — here she was to help me to fix a light switch. We started by pinning her little window on top of a lamp and I could then look around the room and always return to the lamp to see her face, but all the time I was being guided where to go. It felt strangely natural, and I didn’t need to configure anything or learn gestures other than the same "Air Tap" you use to simulate a mouse click.

While I was being talked through which tools we needed for the job, the Microsoft engineer called my attention to the wall with wiring and then started drawing where to position the light switch right on the wall. Thinking about it now it sounds totally surreal, but during the demo I didn’t even think about it — it just felt like I was being guided around with annotations and a helpful friend. We connected up the wiring, tested it for an electrical current, and then turned the power back on and switched the light on. It was all fixed, and all by using a crazy combination of a headset, augmented reality, and Skype. It might sound gimmicky, but the applications here are truly impressive. I use YouTube guides to figure out home improvements or to service my car, but this is on another level. Imagine a surgeon performing complex surgery and writing notes in real time and guiding a colleague through. Imagine support calls to resolve a problem with your PC. If this works as well as Microsoft’s controlled demo, then this really has the ability to change how we communicate and learn.

On Studio:

Microsoft's next demo didn't have us using the HoloLens prototypes directly. Instead, we watched as "Nick" (nobody in Microsoft's blue-tinted demonstration basement has last names. I asked.) manipulated objects in digital space so he could built a Koala bear or a pickup truck. It was actually quite impressive, as cameras filmed him in real time and screens showed both Alex and the virtual objects he was manipulating in the same space in real time.

The idea was to convince us that HoloLens would unleash a wave of creators who would be able to dream up 3D objects with little to no training. It's much easier to understand what a thing is in your living room than it is in AutoCad.

That's one of the worst gaming promotional shots I've ever seen.

I don't even know why that's in the OP, quite honestly. It was from a much earlier part of the presentation.

 

[Helznicht]

Her hand goes down, yet the spray can still magically moves around.

Watch it again. After she puts her hand down it starts tracking with her head & eyes.

 

[Anton Sugar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCCXZ8ErVag&t=4m29s

Her hand goes down, yet the spray can still magically moves around.

That's because the actual cursor is tied to her head and/or eye movement, not her hand. Her hand is just needed for the action/click "tap" of her hand.

 

[loaf of bread]

It can do both Sage.

Actually it's a step better as it has its own CPU & GPU.

Its not true VR. Its not just going to be the same as a real VR headset. It can create an overlay over the area to cloud your vision but it isn't going to achieve the VR you get from a true headset.

 

[Raist]

Watch it again. After she puts her hand down it starts tracking with her head & eyes.

That's because the actual cursor is tied to her head and/or eye movement, not her hand. Her hand is just needed for the action/click "tap" of her hand.

Ah, good catch. I stand corrected.

 

[DrkSage]

It can do both Sage.

Actually it's a step better as it has its own CPU & GPU.

Doubt it. I mean look how it is:

It won't be on the same level as VR.

 

[magnumpy]

I still think VR is much better for gaming. Going by the Minecraft thing, yes, the "mine craft in your living room" looks really cool, but I'd still rather use VR and be INSIDE OF Minecraft.

someone already had that idea

 

[FordGTGuy]

Its not true VR. Its not just going to be the same as a real VR headset. It can create an overlay over the area to cloud your vision but it isn't going to achieve the VR you get from a true headset.

That's strange considering Paul Thurrott used it and said the screen went all black and then went to Mars like a VR.

So I'm going to go with someone that has actually used it.

Doubt it. I mean look how it is:

It won't be on the same level as VR.

Except for what people who have already used it have said.

Also how are you going to base whether or not it can do VR on a picture?

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Until developers prove they can relatively consistently make games with both good gameplay and good game mechanics with reasonable polish, I'm not going to get excited for VR or AR, especially since it will probably be either too expensive without enough games to justify it or hardware too weak to really be feasible.

 

[FordGTGuy]

Until developers prove they can relatively consistently make games with both good gameplay and good game mechanics with reasonable polish, I'm not going to get excited for VR or AR, especially since it will probably be either too expensive without enough games to justify it or hardware too weak to really be feasible.

This has built in hardware including a CPU, GPU and a dedicated HPU which handles all the sensor data.

 

[Cynn]

what, good AR > good VR any day

No way. Reverse that sir.

 

[Savitar]

This is going to be like Kinect or waggle forced into the PS3 controller isn't it.

 

[DopeyFish]

No way. Reverse that sir.

ok

i'll do it for him

good VR < good AR

 

[Raist]

This has built in hardware including a CPU, GPU and a dedicated HPU which handles all the sensor data.

What kind of HW do you think would realistically fit into something of this size?
Not to mention power consumption, since it's wireless.

 

[Bsigg12]

No way. Reverse that sir.

I would say solid AR and solid VR can exist together and both be incredible.

Anyways, we'll probably hear tidbits over the next year about Hololens and then more next year with a 2017 release. This is all based on the "within Windows 10 life" statement during the conference.

 

[magnumpy]

where is MS VR device...VR is being worked on by Facebook, Sony, come on MS don't miss the boat!

 

[Hubble]

So lame, I know.

Everyone is moving on to VR and MS counters with this?

A truly weak offering. ITs not like they couldn't get their own VR substitute. They should've purchased Oculus, not Facebook.

lol..... Both have their own different purposes.

 

[pastrami]

You guys are crazy arguing whether AR or VR is "better." They have very different goals and it's like arguing whether a helicopter is better than an airplane. Two flying vehicles serving different purposes.

 

[FordGTGuy]

What kind of HW do you think would realistically fit into something of this size?
Not to mention power consumption, since it's wireless.

SoCs allow for very small hardware with huge power.

 

[Anton Sugar]

You guys are crazy arguing whether AR or VR is "better." They have very different goals and it's like arguing whether a helicopter is better than an airplane. Two flying vehicles serving different purposes.

I actually think it's kinda genius that they went for AR instead of VR, in terms of sales/marketing.

VR likely leads to a much more immersive gaming experience, but it's more niche in that regard, I think. AR has, potentially, a wider range of use cases and a wider audience. Not being tethered or requiring other hardware is HUGE, as well.

 

[LukasTaves]

Its not true VR. Its not just going to be the same as a real VR headset. It can create an overlay over the area to cloud your vision but it isn't going to achieve the VR you get from a true headset.

A "true VR" headset like oculus is also far from achieve the feeling of actual presence.

Honestly, testing it was one of the biggest letdowns I ever had. I expected some problems (uncomfortable helmet, poor fov) but the tech downright just don't work as intended. I don't know how oculus have gotten so much appraise in its current state.

This, going by the impressions might end being the same overhyped shit. (Thought I like that it has eye tracking and at least in theory a way to interact with the world). At this point I'm just going to hope these stuff are somewhat successful so they can keep developing the tech.

 

[PhatSaqs]

This is going to be like Kinect or waggle forced into the PS3 controller isn't it.

All of this VR/AR crap is destined to fail for gaming IMO. At least from the sound of things this MS tech seems to have capacity outside of just gaming. Still needs to all be taken with a grain of salt until some real application(s) are out in the wild.

 

[Garrett 2U]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCCXZ8ErVag&t=4m29s

Her hand goes down, yet the spray can still magically moves around.

It is controlled by glance, not hand movement, Doc.

 

[DrkSage]

That's strange considering Paul Thurrott used it and said the screen went all black and then went to Mars like a VR.

So I'm going to go with someone that has actually used it.



Except for what people who have already used it have said.

Also how are you going to base whether or not it can do VR on a picture?

What Paul was seeing was what loaf of bread mentioned, it clouds thing so it makes them almost invisible. The reason I posted the picture and the gif is to show that the AR headset glass is almost transparent.

This is why I say it won't be as good as a VR headset.

And since you're going to trust what people that trying it are saying, then I guess you're going to trust this:

http://gizmodo.com/project-hololens-hands-on-incredible-amazing-prototy-1680934585

And then I was looking at the surface of Mars. Or a narrow sliver of it, anyways. It's not like the Oculus Rift, where you're totally immersed in a virtual world practically anywhere you look. The current HoloLens field of view is TINY! I wasn't even impressed at first. All that weight for this? But that's when I noticed that I wasn't just looking at some ghostly transparent representation of Mars superimposed on my vision. I was standing in a room filled with objects. Posters covering the walls. And yet somehow—without blocking my vision—the HoloLens was making those objects almost totally invisible.

Some of the very shiniest things in the room—the silver handle of a pitcher, if I recall correctly—managed to reflect enough light into my eyes to penetrate the illusion. But otherwise, Mars was all around

 

[Bsigg12]

E3 should be fun to see where Microsoft is positioning this with gaming. I don't expect too much shown though.

 

[TheIdleMiner]

Very interested to see where this goes. Obviously the commercial applications for things other than gaming could lead to some pretty amazing stuff.

 

[magnumpy]

E3 should be around the time that the Oculus Rift officially debuts, unless cell phone screens haven't progressed far enough yet. but I would expect something (this?) from MS around that time.

 

[DwightSchruting]

Someone should start a thread on this: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Xbox can stream the pc!

 

[Gordon Shumway]

So..wut?

 

[Sydle]

Someone should start a thread on this: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Xbox can stream the pc!

Glad to learn they're working on it.

 

[Three]

What. I don't think...what. AR's capabilities seem very limited, especially for gaming.

Thing is we've had AR games for a long time and they've not had any standout applications in gaming. I see a lot of people getting excited about board games (remember Eye of Judgment?). I mean the vita is essentially AR capable right now with the main differences being you hold it and it's not stereoscopic. I totally expect the same kind of AR games you see on Vita. on the Hololens namely not very accurate gimmicky games that don't really need to be AR.

 

[fritolay]

This technology makes the forced inclusion of Kinect 2.0 even more crazy. Now if MS or partnered game studios had kinect games ready to go the first 6 months of release, that were not dance games, maybe that would be different.

Kinect 2.0 is like R.O.B.

Based on the track record of Kinect, I will wait and see what games actually make use of this before I buy such a thing. I don't want to pay hundreds for a gimmick.

 

[Regret Upon Approval]

So lame, I know.

Everyone is moving on to VR and MS counters with this?

A truly weak offering. ITs not like they couldn't get their own VR substitute. They should've purchased Oculus, not Facebook.

I'd rather them try something different than hop on with VR just because others did.
As in, it beats an "us too" effort that seems like they just wanna fit in.

 

[oldergamer]

AR is way easier and intuitive for people to understand.

 

[loaf of bread]

What Paul was seeing was what loaf of bread mentioned, it clouds thing so it makes them almost invisible. The reason I posted the picture and the gif is to show that the AR headset glass is almost transparent.

This is why I say it won't be as good as a VR headset.

And since you're going to trust what people that trying it are saying, then I guess you're going to trust this:

http://gizmodo.com/project-hololens-hands-on-incredible-amazing-prototy-1680934585

Was just going to respond with this.

 

[UpUpDownDown]

Microsoft continuously impresses me with their ability the be behind the curve the last few years. First with this TV nonsense and now with a played out cellphone gimmick from 5 years ago.

Thank god for windows/office/outlook

 

[Three]

I'd rather them try something different than hop on with VR just because others did.
As in, it beats an "us too" effort that seems like they just wanna fit in.

I would prefer VR but if the opacity and FOV is really good then MS essentially have both which would be awesome. Oculus could do the same by simply adding cameras on the front. In fact, Sony had a prototype of this 3 years ago which they called Prototype-SR (substituted-reality). I think Toshi from Kotaku had a demo of it, not sure how good it was.

 

[rrc1594]

Is this even a gaming thing, like did they say they are making games for it?

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

Honestly, testing it was one of the biggest letdowns I ever had. I expected some problems (uncomfortable helmet, poor fov) but the tech downright just don't work as intended. I don't know how oculus have gotten so much appraise in its current state.

Which part of DK2 doesn't work as intended? The screen works, the depth works, the positional tracking works, the low latency high framerate works. If you tested it and something felt wrong, something was wrong and it wasn't the hardware, because that works exactly as intended with the right hardware and a good demo.

Plus Oculus "in its current state" is a (likely) 1440p/90fps headset only ever demoed at CES and Oculus Connect which, according to every single impression I've ever read, is remarkable.

 

[Twin Tails]

Is this even a gaming thing, like did they say they are making games for it?

there is Minecraft stuff
https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/557993513976344577

 

[oldergamer]

don't hate what you don't understand peeps sheesh...

 

[rrc1594]

there is Minecraft stuff
https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/557993513976344577

I'm thinking of a Halo Wars game using this. I stated to drool

 

[Fredrik]

I don't get how so many people can go so negative about something this cool and I refuse to believe it's as easy as "it's not my favorite developer doing this so now I must hate it", it must be something else behind this negativity, whatever it is it's sad to see. I'm guessing that this won't come to Xbox One btw, the tech doesn't seem mature enough for that, but I'm gaming mostly on PC nowadays anyway so whenever it's launched I'll definitely be there.

 

[wondermega]

Hmm very interesting. I am pretty excited to see some actual discussion about AR on gaf for a change. I agree with other posters, it's disappointing how dismissive many in the thread are about the tech and it's practicality and potential, but I suppose that makes a lot of sense for many reasons. Trumpeting this particular piece of hardware as being "from the guy who brought you kinect" is probably not going to do a lot of favors in a place like this either.

I'm a designer who works with AR every day, after many years in games and VFX. When I got started down this part of the path I was mostly of the same mind (not very interested, looked like a gimmick) but before long I started to understand where it was going and what it means. The point is this is ultimately going to pull you away from staring into a flat screen to experience things. No, AR isn't VR, one is not "better" than the other and in fact they are very closely related - ultimately, we'll probably have some kind of hybrid of the tech. As my boss says "one day we won't even have a name for it, because it will just be 'how things are'"

Anyway AR (and VR) both have a long road ahead of them. We are still barely in the Atari 2600 days of things, although I won't say it's going to take us anywhere close to 30 years to get to a huge plateau. Seeing major players such as MS and Facebook and Sony getting involved in such a manner shows that they are at least committed to researching the expansion of this new format as well.

To the naysayers in here, I am going to assume many are younger and jaded and sort of fed up with the notion that "oh it's not here doing cool stuff NOW like I want it to so it is just stupid." That's a very shortsighted POV to have, and that's okay. But if you take a little time and start to tune in to what's being done for real, right now, dig a little deeper, try to experience what's on the bleeding edge yourself - it's not far out there. You will be surprised as things mature. Like I said I was right there with you a couple of years ago in the same mentality, and now I'm fucking excited!

 

[Earthanoid]

I don't get how so many people can go so negative about something this cool and I refuse to believe it's as easy as "it's not my favorite developer doing this so now I must hate it", it must be something else behind this negativity, whatever it is it's sad to see. I'm guessing that this won't come to Xbox One btw, the tech doesn't seem mature enough for that, but I'm gaming mostly on PC nowadays anyway so whenever it's launched I'll definitely be there.

I think the problem is that MS more or less lied to everyone with the Kinect reveal. Very little of that initial vision of the Kinect became reality, and while initial impressions of Kinect were generally positive, things didn't really work out. So there is a some legitimate mistrust that MS generated; mix that in with some console warring and it becomes very negative very quickly.

If you watch the concept video and read the hands-on previews, what they're showing in the video is more than what is actually demoed. The Skype and Minecraft demos seemed to work, but the impressions of the Minecraft demo aren't all positive. Impressions on the hardware also say that its in a very early state. So its legitimate to have some suspicions about it I think.

I don't think the technology is that far out, it looks to be an expanded version of Glass with a larger display placed directly in view instead of off to the side. So I think they can get the hardware working. The real question is, how much will it cost? If its as powerful as they say it'll be in the thousands, which makes it inaccessible for most people.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Seems cool as shit. I want to hear more about it for sure.

 

[Durante]

Also how are you going to base whether or not it can do VR on a picture?

It's pretty obvious that its current physical incarnation cannot do VR on the level of, say, the DK2, just from looking at the scant facts we know. (Including its pictures and the fact that it has on-board processing)

Why?

• The pictures show us that it can't have an equivalent FoV
• The pictures show us that it can't have an equivalent level of immersion (lots of leakage)
• The fact that processing is on-board tells us that it can't render complex 3D scenes at sufficient speed (great idea to choose minecraft as a main demo vehicle btw.)