http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pAC5SeNH8jw

Mirror's Edge with the OR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t9TwZ3jpPoA

Early hands on:
http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/25/4145794/oculus-rift-hands-on-gdc-2013

I'm not a big fan of peripherals in general, but it seems sky's the limit for the potential applications from this thing.

wish I could show my grandma that.


http://fluidj.tumblr.com/
http://obamalookingcool.tumblr.com/

http://youtu.be/5o37GORoKUQ

#htpw

http://fluidj.tumblr.com/
http://obamalookingcool.tumblr.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff6ojzy_e_8&hd=1

Skip to 3:12 for when he first jumps into a portal... pretty wild how such a visceral effect can happen.

6:43 - for a bigger jump and a bigger reaction

only a select few?

--sig--
n/a

The set used in the Portal vid is Vireio Perception, and I believe Valve has their own Rift set that lets you divest your aim from where you look.... ie, you can aim anywhere in your FOV, not just in the center. If you've played any FPS games on the Wii, aiming with the Wiimote is similar.

OR combined with an omni-directional treadmill, for the next level of immersion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qpHWJMytx5I

it's these types of applications where I think the OR could really be revolutionary:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/22/4251926/oculus-rift-virtual-reality-therapy-mental-health

Virtual Rx: how Oculus Rift could revolutionize mental health

The headsets are already being called 'a game changer' for treating PTSD and other psychiatric conditions

It's been hailed as the holy grail of virtual reality gaming, but Oculus Rift might soon be much more than that. Though they've yet to reach the hands of regular consumers, the headsets have already been evaluated by a preeminent expert in virtual reality therapy, or VRT, the practice of immersing patients in virtual realms to treat mental health problems. His verdict? "They're a game changer for the work that we do."

"I have no question that Oculus will revolutionize virtual reality for clinical purposes," Dr. Albert Rizzo, a research scientist at the University of California's Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT), told The Verge. "This system is going to be about so much more than playing games." Rizzo received an Oculus Rift developer's kit early, about six weeks before they shipped to other backers, because Oculus creator Palmer Luckey used to work as a technician in another lab at ICT.

Because of that early access, Rizzo has already tested the headset extensively — making him the first clinician to report assessing Oculus' potential in "non-entertainment" settings.



Indeed, Rizzo has something of an ideal background to evaluate new VR systems. In 2005, he developed first-of-its-kind virtual reality software designed to treat war veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. His program, called Virtual Iraq, has since become a mainstay at several military medical centers as well as 55 Veterans Affairs clinics across the country. Rizzo has also developed another military-funded VRT program, meant to bolster soldiers' mental health before they deploy, that's currently being evaluated for widespread use.

Several studies have shown that Rizzo's VRT protocol yields a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, and current research is comparing its effectiveness to other therapeutic approaches. In addition to PTSD, other experts are either using or evaluating VRT programs to treat addiction, phobias, and anxiety disorders, among other mental health problems.

Depending on the issue being addressed, VRT works in different ways — but the therapy is typically designed to mimic real-life scenarios that a patient struggles with. For war-related PTSD, patients use it to re-live combat situations, in an effort to assuage fearful associations linked to traumatic memories. For addiction, patients are confronted with triggers (a bar or a cigarette, for example) in an effort to cultivate and master their resistance strategies for cravings.

"THE...IDEA IS TO GET SOMEONE'S HEAD INTO IT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN"

Though the field of VRT continues to grow, Rizzo notes that it's been hampered by several factors. Namely, that virtual reality hardware remains costly — the systems used for Virtual Iraq run anywhere from $800 to $1,600 — and that the ability to fully immerse a patient is still limited. "The technology isn't where we want it," he said. "With exposure therapy and PTSD, the entire idea is to get someone's head into it as much as you can — we think that's what'll lead to better clinical outcomes."

Oculus Rift, given its low price and unprecedented realism, might very well solve both problems, Rizzo noted. He plans to recommend that treatment sites already using Virtual Iraq consider using Oculus Rift, and has already demoed the system to military clinicians at Joint Base Lewis-McCord. "This has the capacity to turn virtual reality into a mass market treatment," he said. "I'm sure anyone doing this kind of clinical work will agree with me."

"PEOPLE THINK VIRTUAL REALITY IS ALL ABOUT GAMING."

We might soon find out: Luckey told The Verge that "several hundred" developers kits have recently been shipped to individuals in "the military, as well as emergency response and medical training fields."

"Once these guys have something to show, it'll be pretty amazing," Luckey said. "People think virtual reality is all about gaming. But we really think that's only the beginning."

not sure how much of a swipe this is

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/22/4253698/virtuix-omni-treadmill-oculus-rift-integration-kickstarter-pricing

happiness is a mediocre standard for a middle class existence - S. Williams

I don't not like you because you have dumb ideas about the world, I don't like you because you have other people's dumb ideas about the world. - Rjcc

http://www.gamespot.com/news/oculus-rift-engineer-killed-6409155

This is a new foray by FB

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." © Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

I don't really care because I don't have a PC anyway.

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---

I was interested in the Rift not so much for gaming (although it would be an extremely intriguing peripheral) but rather for its other applications (see post #7).

With Facebook owning the company, monetization becomes a much larger priority, and I don't think these are too far off the mark:

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Simpsons+predicted+FB+buying+Oculus+VR.+Simpsons+did+it_48cca6_5071518.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/xbmzqYp.gif

Sky was the limit in terms of applications that could benefit a huge swath of demographics, not just gamers. Medical applications, tourism, education, 3D design, porn, whatever... it seems like almost anything could have had an application for it. And it seemed like guys like Carmack (Armadillo Aerospace) and Luckey (Institute for Creative Technologies) had that bigger picture in mind, along with the ideals to maintain that vision.

Now, I'm not saying Zuck is going to immediately try to monetize the shit outta it... I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. But he's pretty much gone 180 since the $FB IPO from not caring about shareholders to emphasizing the bottom line. This is fine, this is business, and they've been doing quite well.

So while I don't think the "sky's the limit" hopes for the Rift are quite dead like some want to believe, I do have some extreme reservations with how Zuck's going to handle the technology going forward. Google is the unquestioned data king but Facebook owns a lot of data that Google covets... data that's relationship-driven, versus through search. Just like some Google services, there's a certain measure of invasiveness that pervades the marriage of a virtual environment with relationship data.

This is probably the area where I'm most concerned with the acquisition, then somewhat less so the monetization aspect.

Happens.

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---

I'm mean where is the return on investment. They were savvy enough to capitalize on an opportunity.

______________________________
PSN ID - muzuabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/muz_e/

"monetization become a much higher priority"

IT WAS NEVER NOT.

if you think facebook's idea for the oculus is to make it browse facebook, you're a fucking idiot.

zuckerberg thinks this is the next computer / smartphone and now he owns it. he's not putting limits on it so stop it five.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Not sure what made you so mad, but reread what I wrote before trying to conflate my actual position with what you perceive my position to be.

Let's see if we can have a mature discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

there was a lot more need for "monetization" when they were funded by private investors who needed to make their money back.

they needed to monetize the thing, to fund the next generation of the tech, etc. etc.

Facebook does not need to make Oculus profitable this year, or next year, or the year after that. They do want to make it the next big thing in computing. Are they going to be able to do that? remains to be seen, they don't do hardware platforms, but they're way more technical than people think.


John Carmack thinks cyberspace is about to happen, forreal, and that Facebook can get them there in a way that works for a billion people.

I have no concrete reasons to believe that's incorrect.


also, I don't think Sony understands software and networking well enough (yo, as shitty as facebook is, its worst aspect is tons better than anything on playstation) to make vr crack. they haven't done much in the last 15 years that's truly visionary, and they're committed to tying their platforms together to make them all work, so whatever they do, will likely be sony exclusive.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>there was a lot more need for "monetization" when they were
>funded by private investors who needed to make their money
>back.
>
>they needed to monetize the thing, to fund the next generation
>of the tech, etc. etc.
>
>Facebook does not need to make Oculus profitable this year, or
>next year, or the year after that. They do want to make it the
>next big thing in computing. Are they going to be able to do
>that? remains to be seen, they don't do hardware platforms,
>but they're way more technical than people think.
>
>John Carmack thinks cyberspace is about to happen, forreal,
>and that Facebook can get them there in a way that works for a billion people.

Yup. They don't need revenue from Oculus any more than they need revenue from WhatsApp, even with 10x the valuation. Like Google, their robust core business is more than enough to support "moonshot" projects like this.

My disappointment stemmed from the fact that Oculus' association with Facebook (and, by proxy, shareholders) means that there will be a microscope on the nascent platform, especially with competitors now entering the field. When the company was independent, the onus was on finding unique applications, like in the PTSD article above. Not saying this will stop (and this is where I'm willing to give Zuck the benefit of the doubt), but when it comes to shareholders these types of actions don't add much (if any) value to their investment.

Companies like Google and Amazon are mature companies that have proven they can take on uncertain projects like this without having terms dictated to them by shareholders. Facebook is still young, with the unique situation of having a 29-year old with 63% voting rights. From an investment standpoint, there's still a lot of risk associated with the company, despite the generally favorable outlook going forward.

This is where the "monetization" risk comes into play... not necessarily for $FB's bottom line, but in the direction(s) Zuck takes the Oculus with the burden of shareholders. I'm disappointed not because of virtual ads while browsing Facebook (which may or may not happen) but from the potential setback of virtual 3D technology in fields that may have little to no revenue potential (mental health in particular).


>also, I don't think Sony understands software and networking
>well enough (yo, as shitty as facebook is, its worst aspect is
>tons better than anything on playstation) to make vr crack.
>they haven't done much in the last 15 years that's truly
>visionary, and they're committed to tying their platforms
>together to make them all work, so whatever they do, will
>likely be sony exclusive.

Yup. I didn't mention Sony's foray into the virtual space because I see it like I view most of their creative forays: some copycat-ism mixed in with a desire for proprietary control. I don't expect applications outside of gaming and I don't expect a compelling experience.

While I've been impressed with some of the business decisions they've made with the PS4, those have been driven almost entirely by the vocal gamer demo along with Xbox's utter dominance in the most lucrative territory. I hope that Sony will try and apply this acumen with future products, but until then I view the PS4 as the exception, not the rule.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/introducing-michael-abrash-oculus-chief-scientist/

I don't see how anyone can have skepticism or doubt about oculus right now

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I love me some fucking nature shit

http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/14/5612674/sir-david-attenborough-is-working-on-an-oculus-rift-nature-documentary

Sir David Attenborough is developing a new nature documentary for the Oculus Rift headset, Atantic Productions' commercial director John Morris told realscreen.

The program, which will be called "Conquest of the Skies," is being filmed by the production company and will feature 360 degree views of Borneo.

"We're now filming for the Oculus Rift," said Morris, "so when we filmed our recent flight in Borneo, we filmed with an eight-camera rig, so you got the full 360° experience." So far no date has been set for when the show airs.

British-born Attenborough is a broadcaster and naturalist best known for his work presenting natural history programs including the Life series and other series' produced by BBC.

The virtual reality platform is in the process of becoming acquired by Facebook for $2 billion, it was announced earlier this year. According to a press release from Facebook, the company plans to expand the Oculus Rift headset's applications beyond gaming to broader fields such as media, entertainment, communications and education. At the same time, Facebook wants to "accelerate" the company's growth in the gaming space. The deal is expected to close during the second quarter of 2014.