Oculus Confirms Touch Shipping In December, Supports Room-Scale VR With A Catch

Status
Not open for further replies.

jj1979

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2011
21
0
18,520
1
So this basically puts it on par with the Vive cost wise? I think people (including myself) that's already got the Vive know what we are in for. I'll invest my money on V2 for better VOF and better DPI on these headsets. Room scale is cool and all, but Oculus lost their buyers to Vive on this front, sorry Mark.
 

dstarr3

Honorable
Mar 18, 2014
1,527
0
11,960
52
I do vastly prefer these hand controllers over the Vive's. VR is great because of the whole immersion thing, especially with independent hand movement, but we're still going to need buttons to do stuff and joysticks to move, unless we want to play on-rails shooters for the rest of our lives.
 

WFang

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
130
0
4,680
0

Not quite sure if your comment about moving and buttons 'and stuff' is in general or aimed specifically at the Vive controllers? At any rate, the shooters and games I have been playing on the Vive have not been 'on-rail' for the most part. Most allow free move on a platform OR free move + blink teleport variations in an open world.
That said, more buttons would possibly be nice, but as they are I find them to be very comfortable to use. I hope that what ends up happening is various styles and options for controllers (for both platforms) so that you can pick the one that works best for a given game (or person).
 

WFang

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
130
0
4,680
0

That was my first thought, but if you read the end of the article, the 'catch' is you do not actually get room scale VR for the same price as Vive VR.. You need a 3rd "Touch" sensor for another $79, so the total is 599 + 199 + 79 = 877, or a full $78 more than Vive VR to get the full room scale solution.
 

dstarr3

Honorable
Mar 18, 2014
1,527
0
11,960
52


Well, currently, the best control scheme for first-person games is WASD+mouselook. And I think the best control scheme for first-person VR games would be a joystick on one of the hand paddles and your own head for looking around. Because the fundamental problem with room-scale is that it is inherently niche, because very few people will want to clear an entire room just to game. A seated solution is the only solution that will ever make it mainstream. Not to mention the room-scale problems of walking/running speed, and sheer space. Unless the future of VR shooters is fighting baddies standing still in 10x10 rooms at a time, room-scale VR just won't cut it in the long term.

Basically, there's nothing VR can do to give the player infinite space to move around in, so there needs to be another way for a player to move other than physically in any way that can't be done in a chair. And a joystick on a hand paddle seems to be the simplest, most intuitive way.
 

WFang

Reputable
Dec 10, 2014
130
0
4,680
0

I hear you, but have you actually had the chance to spend any time with e.g. Vive VR? The "move around a tiny real area to interact with close-up stuff, then point and click to teleport" works VERY intuitively within a short amount of time. I think I would actually prefer this way over a thumb-stick or something because it is faster and more intuitive to point and teleport than to widget around with my thumb or finger on a stick.

As far as the practicalities of room-scale, everyones situation is different, I perhaps just happen to be lucky, but I found that the space between my sofa and my TV is sufficient for good fun room-scale experiences, though I now really wish I did not have that 'chaise' portion sticking out of one part of my sofa. If it wasn't for that, it would be a much 'deeper' play area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS