Valve Helping AMD on VR Support for Linux

[Simmonz]

Valve is on a roll lately. They have been doing a lot of work on the Mesa driver but now they are also helping AMD get their AMDGPU-PRO driver ready for VR on Linux.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMDGPU-PRO-VR-Linuxhttp://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMDGPU-PRO-VR-Linux

 

[heatlesssun]

Cool. I do wonder about what the game plan is for Linux SteamVR. I know it's early and Linux SteamVR is still in beta but beyond stuff like this, things have been REAL quiet. No date for a general release and no games announced in development that I know of. Maybe Valve will bring whatever 1st party VR games it's working on to Linux but nothing's been said about that.

 

[Simmonz]

Cool. I do wonder about what the game plan is for Linux SteamVR. I know it's early and Linux SteamVR is still in beta but beyond stuff like this, things have been REAL quiet. No date for a general release and no games announced in development that I know of. Maybe Valve will bring whatever 1st party VR games it's working on to Linux but nothing's been said about that.

Agreed, it has been a bit quiet since the original announcement. My best guess is that their just trying to get the tech actually working at the moment and will worry about games later. I would be shocked if Valve didn't port over their 1st party stuff. In the mean time i'm just enjoying the constant work being done on the Mesa driver. Eventually I plan to go VR but they're helping me out even with non VR games at the moment.

 

[heatlesssun]

Agreed, it has been a bit quiet since the original announcement. My best guess is that their just trying to get the tech actually working at the moment and will worry about games later. I would be shocked if Valve didn't port over their 1st party stuff. In the mean time i'm just enjoying the constant work being done on the Mesa driver. Eventually I plan to go VR but they're helping me out even with non VR games at the moment.

I guess if Valve is serious about Linux VR they'd have to release their first party VR games on Linux. But like SteamVR itself I would suspect maybe not at launch. Valve knows exactly how many VR headsets are out there using SteamVR and the OS they support and if VR is niche, VR on Linux is something for more niche than that. I'm not trying to attack Linux in any way here, I'm genuinely curious. VR is enjoying a lot of hype right now and it would seem to have been in Valve's interest to get Linux VR going faster than this.

 

[ChadD]

Seeing as the majority of all current VR titles are using... Unreal 4, LibGDX, AppgameKit, Unity and Cryengine.

I wouldn't expect Vavlue has much to do other then ensure the hardware is all running properly.

Seeing as all those engines have full Linux make ability... all Valve really has to do is ensure the platform is ready. As long as the hardware/drivers/APIs are in place... it shouldn't be more then a few hours of work to build Linux versions of pretty much every VR title already on the market.

Sill I expect Valve is still a ways away from where they would like things to be with Linux VR. Its coming along though... glad they are working with AMD directly.

 

[BulletDust]

You have to consider that there are a number of issues to overcome under Linux considering X Server that aren't present under Windows, overcoming such issues takes time. However, it's blatantly obvious that the development in overcoming such issues is ongoing, I'm sure once all problems have been ironed out practical application development will grow.

Assuming VR actually takes off, in many way's it's no different to the hype surrounding the Nintendo powerglove in the day.

 

[ChadD]

Oh man you making me want to find a copy of The Wizard.

I bet it really hasn't aged very well at all.... well ok it was terrible in 89 as well.

 

[BulletDust]

Oh man you making me want to find a copy of The Wizard.

I bet it really hasn't aged very well at all.... well ok it was terrible in 89 as well.

The powerglove was actually a great idea, it simply wasn't practical. VR is very similar in this regard and still has numerous issues to overcome if it's going to see mass adoption, otherwise it may go the way of the Powerglove. Sales don't mean everything as the Powerglove actually sold really well, it sold far better than any VR headset on the market today.

 

[Frobozz]

The powerglove was actually a great idea, it simply wasn't practical. VR is very similar in this regard and still has numerous issues to overcome if it's going to see mass adoption, otherwise it may go the way of the Powerglove. Sales don't mean everything as the Powerglove actually sold really well, it sold far better than any VR headset on the market today.

I bet it's only a matter of time before we see the glove form-factor come back as a VR controller. With the right combination of modern sensors, it could probably be the original vision. So baaaaddd... (not really joking)

 

[BulletDust]

I bet it's only a matter of time before we see the glove form-factor come back as a VR controller. With the right combination of modern sensors, it could probably be the original vision. So baaaaddd... (not really joking)

Did you ever try one in the day? Honestly it was so much easier just to use a standard controller!

People still mod them though, re-purpose them for more practical applications. It's interesting that the technology the Powerglove was derived from used a VR headset that looked almost identical to a Rift or Vive, roughly similar tracking principles also.

 

[B00nie]

Mmmm... a vibrating power 'glove'...

 

[heatlesssun]

Sales don't mean everything as the Powerglove actually sold really well, it sold far better than any VR headset on the market today.

Approximately 100,000 units of the Power Glove were sold in the U.S.[11] The two games that were especially made for the Power Glove sold poorly and the Power Glove itself was a critical and commercial failure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Glove

Not sure where you're getting you numbers but according this the Powerglove didn't seem to have sold close the Vive or even Rift thus far while costing just a fraction of the money of PC VR setup, even when adjusting for inflation. And only two games? There's neatly 1400 VR only titles on Steam in only 14 months. Even with shovel ware that's remarkable for something that almost no one 15 months ago outside of developers particularly at this price point. I tried demos of the Powerglove in stores so I never had any long term experience but it's nothing at all like PC VR and anyone who enjoys PC VR will say the same thing.

Sure there are issues to overcome with VR but with the right content I've found it just amazing. One of my current favorites, Superhot VR, was derived from a traditional game of the same name which happens to also be Linux compatible. A very well received game in 2D and I think great but the VR version is just so much more engaging, it's like right out The Matrix with the slow motion dogging mechanics and the ability to block gun fire. The ability of current VR tech to place a person in the game is just unlike anything previously in the consumer market.

As for controllers, there's already accessories for things like gun stocks, full body and even eye tracking. Things are ramping up pretty quickly and next year I expect wireless to become a bigger thing with Intel now in the game. There's a long way to go and a number of years of ongoing development even in a niche market. PC VR will probably never be any more mainstream then high-end GPUs but like high-end GPUs there's going to be a market for it, even if it is niche.

 

[ChadD]

Its all about ratios their Heatle. There where never more then 30 million Nintendo entertainment systems in NA... their are billions of PCs. As far as % of the market that own the peripheral VRs install base is far lower. If you knew someone with a NES back in the day the chances they owned a power glove where much better then the chances of a PC gamer owning a set of video eyes today.

Besides of which man you really like to pick and choose out of peoples posts don't you. lol

Anyway I guess now we turn this into a VR sux VR rox VR sux thread right ?

I'll leave this thread now with this for you though heatle... even you have to admit at this point. They are on track to not even hit 2 million PC VR head sets sold 2 years from now. You have to understand that isn't a situation that is going to lead to any PC first AAA development right ?

 

[heatlesssun]

Its all about ratios their Heatle. There where never more then 30 million Nintendo entertainment systems in NA... their are billions of PCs. As far as % of the market that own the peripheral VRs install base is far lower. If you knew someone with a NES back in the day the chances they owned a power glove where much better then the chances of a PC gamer owning a set of video eyes today.

Besides of which man you really like to pick and choose out of peoples posts don't you. lol

Anyway I guess now we turn this into a VR sux VR rox VR sux thread right ?

I'll leave this thread now with this for you though heatle... even you have to admit at this point. They are on track to not even hit 2 million PC VR head sets sold 2 years from now. You have to understand that isn't a situation that is going to lead to any PC first AAA development right ?

The Powerglove was on the market 1 year and got a total of TWO games. The Vive and Rift are still on the market after a year, don't appear to be going away anytime soon and now have decently sized libraries that are growing a bit faster than conventional desktop Linux gaming. Everything has to start somewhere, this is a brand new market and sure the numbers aren't large and won't be without cheaper and better hardware and they may never be large. But they don't have to be, there just needs to be some profit there.

I'm not making any solid long term predictions here, maybe PC VR will vanish but I think that's unlikely and almost certainly no time soon. Valve is investing a lot in VR with no signs of slowing, they've even recently added macOS support for the Vive: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/steamvr-support-macos-beta,34673.html. Apple certainly wouldn't be getting into a market they think is going nowhere.

 

[heatlesssun]

You have to consider that there are a number of issues to overcome under Linux considering X Server that aren't present under Windows, overcoming such issues takes time. However, it's blatantly obvious that the development in overcoming such issues is ongoing, I'm sure once all problems have been ironed out practical application development will grow.

Assuming VR actually takes off, in many way's it's no different to the hype surrounding the Nintendo powerglove in the day.

I understand that work is continuing with Linux Steam VR, Valve is even now working on macOS Steam VR which is a very interesting development and Apple is supporting it. I was just taking a look at the Steam forums searching on "Linux VR" and for an OS that supporters say is so superior to Windows, it is funny to hear well, maybe sometimes Windows ain't all that bad afterall. And there's stuff like this: http://steamcommunity.com/app/485680/discussions/0/1290690669225347782/. Even a Linux game developer that's claiming Linux is their lead platform just a month ago was having problems just getting Linux Steam VR setup.

Having gone through that process myself and reading about the troubles even Linux experts have had with it, I'm sorry, the quality of what Valve put out here is simply not good. And I'm not saying there aren't good reasons for that but why the hell is just setting this up proving to be so difficult? If Linux is such a superior OS, with all the time that's passed with this launching on Windows what the hell is going here? Just reading through the Steam community it looks like Steam VR getting out of beta or development is highly unlikely this year. And with macOS support in the works, it's possible that Linux might even take a back seat to that effort.

 

[BulletDust]

Blah, blah, blah...

Not even worth reading his posts anymore.

Yes, the Powerglove was a commercial failure, hence the reason for using it as an example of the fact that VR has most definitely not taken off in the consumer market yet, even though some heavily invested individuals believe it to be the next best thing.

Global sales figures of the Powerglove put it at 1.3 million units including Japan, no good just quoting US sales figures. While only two games were released specifically for the Powerglove, the idea was that the powerglove be used to control all games in place of a conventional controller. Having said that most games released for VR are the sorts of titles I would have bought cheaply on cassette for the C64 from some bargain bin at Toys-R-Us in the day, moving through decent games is plagued by neuroscience issues resulting in sickness that can only really be resolved by 'teleporting' through the game - Hardly ideal.

There is no doubt that there is a number of interesting similarities between the Powerglove and modern VR that highlight beyond all doubt that VR needs to improve and drop in price dramatically before mainstream acceptance of the technology can even be considered. I wonder how good the VR experience will be when it reaches a mainstream affordable figure of ~$200.00 or less? What compromises will have to be made detracting from the overall experience?

 

[heatlesssun]

Blah, blah, blah...

Not even worth reading his posts anymore.

Yes, the Powerglove was a commercial failure, hence the reason for using it as an example of the fact that VR has most definitely not taken off in the consumer market yet, even though some heavily invested individuals believe it to be the next best thing.

Global sales figures of the Powerglove put it at 1.3 million units including Japan, no good just quoting US sales figures. While only two games were released specifically for the Powerglove, the idea was that the powerglove be used to control all games in place of a conventional controller. Having said that most games released for VR are the sorts of titles I would have bought cheaply on cassette for the C64 from some bargain bin at Toys-R-Us in the day, moving through decent games is plagued by neuroscience issues resulting in sickness that can only really be resolved by 'teleporting' through the game - Hardly ideal.

There is no doubt that there is a number of interesting similarities between the Powerglove and modern VR that highlight beyond all doubt that VR needs to improve and drop in price dramatically before mainstream acceptance of the technology can even be considered. I wonder how good the VR experience will be when it reaches a mainstream affordable figure of ~$200.00 or less? What compromises will have to be made detracting from the overall experience?

LOL! I always find this kind of stuff funny coming from Linux folks that are always criticizing Windows users because of their lack of experience with Linux. I'm the only one in this thread that's used PC VR on a long term basis here. Comparing the Powerglove to a Vive or Rift just doesn't make a lot sense because they aren't just controllers. And there is a lot of fun content out there. There are people that simply enjoy VR gaming now and will continue to enjoy it.

Global sales figures of the Powerglove put it at 1.3 million units including Japan, no good just quoting US sales figures. While only two games were released specifically for the Powerglove, the idea was that the powerglove be used to control all games in place of a conventional controller. Having said that most games released for VR are the sorts of titles I would have bought cheaply on cassette for the C64 from some bargain bin at Toys-R-Us in the day, moving through decent games is plagued by neuroscience issues resulting in sickness that can only really be resolved by 'teleporting' through the game - Hardly ideal.

The major problem with VR is locomotion and I've said many times it's not something easy to address because it is indeed a matter of human physiology. But plenty of games don't require or need auto locomotion and it is something that at some people can adjust too, one's brain simply begins to process things differently. Like the research being done in VR and pain management.

There is no doubt that there is a number of interesting similarities between the Powerglove and modern VR that highlight beyond all doubt that VR needs to improve and drop in price dramatically before mainstream acceptance of the technology can even be considered. I wonder how good the VR experience will be when it reaches a mainstream affordable figure of ~$200.00 or less? What compromises will have to be made detracting from the overall experience?

The Powerglove was only $75 dollars in the US so there never was a cost on entry problem. No doubt that if a good PC VR HMD setup could be had for $115 ($75 in today's money) there'd be a lot more PC VR setups out there. No one is debating the cost of PC VR and the need for the pricing and technology to improve to gain wider acceptance. But even if wide acceptance is slow in coming, if ever, the technology without doubt going to become cheaper and better so its hard to see the user base not growing and even harder to see VR going away anytime soon. If Apple is even getting into the mix they clearly see it more than a passing fad, at least for now.

 

[BulletDust]

I just love how you assume to know my experiences/skillset, downright hilarious! I don't consider you a VR guru if that's what you believe yourself to be.

For games to be accepted, they require locomotion - Teleporting isn't going to cut it.

There is no evidence at this stage that the consumer has, or is going to, accept VR. There is plenty of evidence of another Powerglove type scenario.

Do yourself a favour, don't jump to any brash and unfounded generalisations when considering my experiences/capabilities.

 

[heatlesssun]

I just love how you assume to know my experiences/skillset, downright hilarious! I don't consider you a VR guru if that's what you believe yourself to be.

I never said I was a VR guru but I do now currently use it on a regular basis. No one else here has long term personal experiences to share about the technology so at least my opinions are based on experience and nothing you say changes that fact.

For games to be accepted, they require locomotion - Teleporting isn't going to cut it.

Not all games require locomotion and teleportation does work well in many situations though I'd agree not ideal for shooters. There are games that are beginning to things like a mix of auto locomotion and teleportation. Again, I agree that it is an issue and there needs to be better ways to handle it and the physical effects. Perfect solutions may never come but there are still compelling experiences in VR besides.

There is no evidence at this stage that the consumer has, or is going to, accept VR. There is plenty of evidence of another Powerglove type scenario.

The fact that this is far more VR development that the Powerglove ever dreamed of is evidence to exactly the contrary.

Do yourself a favour, don't jump to any brash and unfounded generalisations when considering my experiences/capabilities.

It's not a generalization pointing out that you don't use PC VR on a regular basis, that's just a statement of fact. If you do then you can say that do you it and name some games or other long term experiences you've had with it.

 

[Vermillion]

The Powerglove was only $75 dollars in the US so there never was a cost on entry problem. No doubt that if a good PC VR HMD setup could be had for $115 ($75 in today's money) there'd be a lot more PC VR setups out there. No one is debating the cost of PC VR and the need for the pricing and technology to improve to gain wider acceptance. But even if wide acceptance is slow in coming, if ever, the technology without doubt going to become cheaper and better so its hard to see the user base not growing and even harder to see VR going away anytime soon. If Apple is even getting into the mix they clearly see it more than a passing fad, at least for now.

yes it was a cost on entry problem. $75 doesn't seem like a lot now but that coverts to $151 in today's dollars. That was a pretty big friggin' barrier to entry for a lot of families back in 1989. If it hadn't been for my grandparents I never would have even had a Nintendo (the only video game system that was ever in our house).

 

[BulletDust]

I never said I was a VR guru but I do now currently use it on a regular basis. No one else here has long term personal experiences to share about the technology so at least my opinions are based on experience and nothing you say changes that fact.



Not all games require locomotion and teleportation does work well in many situations though I'd agree not ideal for shooters. There are games that are beginning to things like a mix of auto locomotion and teleportation. Again, I agree that it is an issue and there needs to be better ways to handle it and the physical effects. Perfect solutions may never come but there are still compelling experiences in VR besides.



The fact that this is far more VR development that the Powerglove ever dreamed of is evidence to exactly the contrary.



It's not a generalization pointing out that you don't use PC VR on a regular basis, that's just a statement of fact. If you do then you can say that do you it and name some games or other long term experiences you've had with it.

I don't believe long term experiences mean shit. I have experience using VR in numerous forms for over a decade now to present time, it's not rocket science.

Fact is, the way VR stands ATM: Market saturation is waaaay low, supported titles are mediocre at best, hardware requirements and their associated costs are a major issue and the cost of the unit itself and bulkiness is another major factor - Not even considering the neuroscience issues.

Next best thing? It's been out for years considering variants of it's current iteration and I'm not seeing any promising signs as yet in relation to consumer acceptance.

 

[BulletDust]

yes it was a cost on entry problem. $75 doesn't seem like a lot now but that coverts to $151 in today's dollars. That was a pretty big friggin' barrier to entry for a lot of families back in 1989. If it hadn't been for my grandparents I never would have even had a Nintendo (the only video game system that was ever in our house).

My first computers, a C64 and a Commodore Amiga 500, I bought off mates second hand as my parents could not afford a computer.

 

[heatlesssun]

yes it was a cost on entry problem. $75 doesn't seem like a lot now but that coverts to $151 in today's dollars. That was a pretty big friggin' barrier to entry for a lot of families back in 1989. If it hadn't been for my grandparents I never would have even had a Nintendo (the only video game system that was ever in our house).

Ok, fair enough, but if a Vive in it's current form were $151 few would be talking about cost was an barrier to entry.

 

[heatlesssun]

I don't believe long term experiences mean shit. I have experience using VR in numerous forms for over a decade now to present time, it's not rocket science.

This is ridiculous. Who gets opinions and advice from people who don't have experience with something. You don't have a decade of experience with VR technology like the Vive or Rift using the power of modern GPUs because this stuff at this level is well beyond anything from a decade ago. As you say, not rocket science.

Fact is, the way VR stands ATM: Market saturation is waaaay low, supported titles are mediocre at best, hardware requirements and their associated costs are a major issue and the cost of the unit itself and bulkiness is another major factor - Not even considering the neuroscience issues.

What do you know of currently supported titles if you've never played even one?

Next best thing? It's been out for years considering variants of it's current iteration and I'm not seeing any promising signs as yet in relation to consumer acceptance.

What has been on the market in the past that's close to what a Vive or Rift can do when powered by a modern, powerful PC?

 

[ChadD]

Ok, fair enough, but if a Vive in it's current form were $151 few would be talking about cost was an barrier to entry.

Its not just cost... I know you don't want to hear that, still its true. The issues are numerous let me run them down;

1) Cost.... headset is only part of that as you know Most people aren't running 1080s... or even 750 TIs, the masses "even those that use steam" are mostly running on the GPU built into their CPUs at this point.
2) Form Factor.... You may not have an issue strapping almost 2lbs to your head all day. Still many do. "They make you look stupid" doesn't just come from Linux VR haters. Then of course there is the fact that 60% of people wear some form of vision correction.
3) The oh my good I'm going to puke factor. Yes is effects more people then is healthy for the tech to really take off. Trust me even if your not bothered by it, watching someone else loose their lunch is zero fun. The solutions of teleporting in games is a so so solution that really limits any hope of major AAA non-vr titles getting ports.
4) due to the above... the PC VR companies haven't even combined to push 1 million units yet. At the current rate of sales its going to take them years to get enough of an install base to be sustainable. No development company is going to pour millions into AAA or even AA quality games if the potential market is 2-3 million units. I mean think about it a little bit if there are 4 million units operating say in 3 years and a game developer spends 40 million on a game not counting marketing (low end AAA title)... if they manage to sell one copy to 750,000 people $53 of the sale price is already burnt on development alone. Factor in 10-20% off the top at least for Steam/MS/FB or whatever store is selling the title... they would have to sell their game at over $100 and spend almost nothing on marketing to even hope to make half the margin they would make just producing mobile games.

In any event... the entire point of this thread was... its nice to see Valve spending money on platform development. I have no idea why we are arguing about the future of VR anyway.... cause bullet made a power glove joke ??? lmao

Personally I'm out until they combine them give me gloves a big ole headset and some of them nootropic drugs Remington Steel was talking about.

 

[BulletDust]

This is ridiculous. Who gets opinions and advice from people who don't have experience with something. You don't have a decade of experience with VR technology like the Vive or Rift using the power of modern GPUs because this stuff at this level is well beyond anything from a decade ago. As you say, not rocket science.

You've assumed my experience in VR, you have no idea as to my experiences, capabilities or skill set - You do what you always do, generalize and apply blanket statements.

The fact you somehow justified in excess of AU $1000.00 on a hot and heavy VR headset does not make you an expert in the field. Once again, VR and it's usage is far from the rocket science you claim it to be.

 

[heatlesssun]

Its not just cost... I know you don't want to hear that, still its true. The issues are numerous let me run them down;

1) Cost.... headset is only part of that as you know Most people aren't running 1080s... or even 750 TIs, the masses "even those that use steam" are mostly running on the GPU built into their CPUs at this point.
2) Form Factor.... You may not have an issue strapping almost 2lbs to your head all day. Still many do. "They make you look stupid" doesn't just come from Linux VR haters. Then of course there is the fact that 60% of people wear some form of vision correction.
3) The oh my good I'm going to puke factor. Yes is effects more people then is healthy for the tech to really take off. Trust me even if your not bothered by it, watching someone else loose their lunch is zero fun. The solutions of teleporting in games is a so so solution that really limits any hope of major AAA non-vr titles getting ports.
4) due to the above... the PC VR companies haven't even combined to push 1 million units yet. At the current rate of sales its going to take them years to get enough of an install base to be sustainable. No development company is going to pour millions into AAA or even AA quality games if the potential market is 2-3 million units. I mean think about it a little bit if there are 4 million units operating say in 3 years and a game developer spends 40 million on a game not counting marketing (low end AAA title)... if they manage to sell one copy to 750,000 people $53 of the sale price is already burnt on development alone. Factor in 10-20% off the top at least for Steam/MS/FB or whatever store is selling the title... they would have to sell their game at over $100 and spend almost nothing on marketing to even hope to make half the margin they would make just producing mobile games.

In any event... the entire point of this thread was... its nice to see Valve spending money on platform development. I have no idea why we are arguing about the future of VR anyway.... cause bullet made a power glove joke ??? lmao

Personally I'm out until they combine them give me full globes a big ole headset and some of them nootropic drugs Remington Steel was talking about.

I'm very well aware of the issues related to PC VR. Few would by this stuff on a whim and I spent months researching and asking questions. I never got to demo a Vive first hand before buying but was confident that I knew what I was getting into. I'm nearsighted so I also researched that and it seems that for many folks myopia isn't a problem and they don't need to use their vision correction, it's working for me. And there are corrective lenses for the Vive.

All I was saying here is that at $151, the cost issue disappears for the most part. There's plenty of folks that debate the issue but there are people that love VR here, I'm far from the only one. Whatever the eventual outcome of PC VR there's years of development and product releases ahead. It's not going away time soon and there are people who will enjoy it at least while they can.

 

[heatlesssun]

You've assumed my experience in VR, you have no idea as to my experiences, capabilities or skill set - You do what you always do, generalize and apply blanket statements.

The fact you somehow justified in excess of AU $1000.00 on a hot and heavy VR headset does not make you an expert in the field. Once again, VR and it's usage is far from the rocket science you claim it to be.

I'm not assuming anything, you've not mentioned any long term experiences with current PC VR tech. If you're going to remark on current VR games it would be hard for anyone to take stock in what people who've never played one say about the state of VR games.

 

[BulletDust]

I'm not assuming anything, you've not mentioned any long term experiences with current PC VR tech. If you're going to remark on current VR games it would be hard for anyone to take stock in what people who've never played one say about the state of VR games.

Yes I have, numerous times. You simply do what you always do and flatly ignore valid and reasonable points of view that conflict with your odd opinions.

I'm sick of going over the same drawn out shit time and time again because you basically refuse to listen to reason.

Now leave me alone while I watch the Lawnmower Man, a golden classic. It's interesting how in 25 years the cost of the user interface (ie: the glove, not the headset) has dropped from $10,000.00 to an affordable figure with compromises in design - That's just the interface, god knows how much the headset was worth in 1992.

So given ~ another 25 years, especially considering the modern issues of wage levels way below inflation, and the headset may have reached a point where it's affordable for the masses and therefore accepted by consumers as a viable platform.

Completely ignoring the cost of the associated PC necessary for a viable VR experience....

 

[heatlesssun]

Yes I have, numerous times. You simply do what you always do and flatly ignore valid and reasonable points of view that conflict with your odd opinions.

I'm sick of going over the same drawn out shit time and time again because you basically refuse to listen to reason.

Now leave me alone while I watch the Lawnmower Man, a golden classic. It's interesting how in 25 years the cost of the user interface (ie: the glove, not the headset) has dropped from $10,000.00 to an affordable figure with compromises in design - That's just the interface, god knows how much the headset was worth in 1992.

So given ~ another 25 years, especially considering the modern issues of wage levels way below inflation, and the headset may have reached a point where it's affordable for the masses and therefore accepted by consumers as a viable platform.

Completely ignoring the cost of the associated PC necessary for a viable VR experience....

You've made a lot of comments about VR, naturally anyone that uses it or truly interested in it is going to wonder what you're experience with it is. I asked a lot of questions of folks about it when I was researching if I wanted to buy a setup and I asked a lot about specific games and experiences. And people didn't get all defensive about it like you while mentioning no one single detail of any specific experience.

 

[BulletDust]

You've made a lot of comments about VR, naturally anyone that uses it or truly interested in it is going to wonder what you're experience with it is. I asked a lot of questions of folks about it when I was researching if I wanted to buy a setup and I asked a lot about specific games and experiences. And people didn't get all defensive about it like you while mentioning no one single detail of any specific experience.

Good for you, don't assume to know anything about me.

 

[heatlesssun]

Good for you, don't assume to know anything about me.

You've made a lot of comments and generalizations and some comparisons between current PC VR and things like the Powerglove which I doubt make a lot of sense to anyone that have PC VR setups. And you've made a lot of generalizations about gaming content which no specifics about any games you've played in a library that's close to 1400 titles on Steam now. Even if 90% are crap, that's still 140 titles and no mention of any actual time playing a single one.

I've never said that the issues that people mention of PC VR weren't valid. The issues would be obvious to anyone that has bought these setups and use them regularly. But it really wasn't until I started using the Vive and tried a number of games that I got the fun and enjoyment of this tech even with the issues. This is simply a way to interact with computers that while not new, have evolved to a point where it can be compelling and while not cheap, at price points that don't make them completely out reach.

In any case as long Valve and others are investing in VR it's not going anywhere anymore than conventional Linux gaming. And as Valve has improved Linux gaming it will VR as well. Valve has a new lighthouse design for the Vive tracking base stations that's supposed to reduce the cost for next gen headsets for instance.

 

[BulletDust]

I've posted my opinion based on similar technology throughout tech history, hardly unfounded generalizations.

As it stand ATM, there's more evidence VR is destined for failure than success - It's simply too bulky, to power hungry and way too expensive to be adopted outside of niche circles. The price needs to drop to ~$200.00 or less to make the technology viable to the mass market, in which case the experience will suffer so much that the technology will fail anyway.

That's not even considering any practical application of the technology as people don't really like standing in the middle of a room waving their arms about (even in front of the PC for that matter) and neuroscience issues when moving throughout VR.

What we've found impressive in Hollywood movies for decades doesn't always translate into a practical product for the mass market no matter how many companies get involved and no matter how much you want to spin it - The Powergolve was also the next best thing, except practically speaking it wasn't.

 

[heatlesssun]

I've posted my opinion based on similar technology throughout tech history, hardly unfounded generalizations.

What prior tech really compares to a Vive or Rift or OSVR? I understand that there have been plenty of VR attempts in the past but this generation even with its problems is well beyond anything the consumer market has seen previously especially as the baseline GPU power needed for this generation of PC VR only came a couple of years ago. The Powerglove is nothing at all similar. Just one of a number of specialized controllers that developers never bothered to utilize much.

As it stand ATM, there's more evidence VR is destined for failure than success - It's simply too bulky, to power hungry and way too expensive to be adopted outside of niche circles. The price needs to drop to ~$200.00 or less to make the technology viable to the mass market, in which case the experience will suffer so much that the technology will fail anyway.

Considering all of the development effort that's going into VR from multiple companies particularly Valve now even expanding into macOS VR support there's years to go before success or failure can be declared. Everyone knows things need to improve, that's why Valve is designing cheaper hardware right now.

That's not even considering any practical application of the technology as people don't really like standing in the middle of a room waving their arms about (even in front of the PC for that matter) and neuroscience issues when moving throughout VR.

And that's not all VR games, one of the most popular now that I like as well is Star Trek Bridge Crew that's played entirely from a seated position. And the waving arms thing, that's kind of the point, one is in a 3D simulation interacting and reacting to things that are not real.

What we've found impressive in Hollywood movies for decades doesn't always translate into a practical product for the mass market no matter how many companies get involved and no matter how much you want to spin it - The Powergolve was also the next best thing, except practically speaking it wasn't.

So we'll see where this all goes, it will be some years. The Powerglove was on accessory that no developer bothered with. There's tons of develop going on with VR currently. Valve certainly sees a good future in it currently. Every bit and more than conventional Linux gaming.

 

[BulletDust]

The powerglove was intended to be a VR controller, it was hyped and heralded to be the next best thing in gaming, there was no practical application for it and it was actually easier to game without it. I see VR as much the same, shooters are harder as I personally don't like the crosshair being on a different plane to the action, therefore useless for competitive gameplay compared to more tried and proven control methods, plus you have neuroscience issues to overcome and the cost of hardware capable of rendering a decent VR experience. Furthermore, there's no way the masses are going to be arsed setting the VR system up when they can simply sit in front of a 4k display and play Tomb Raider with a minimum of fuss, an experience that can be just as immersive once focused on the task at hand - Able to do more than just point and shoot without locomotion and no nausea.

Too complex, too heavy, too many cables, too expensive, too power hungry, too many neuroscience issues - Too much of a hassle for the masses to even consider it. Right now it's a gimmick, no more, no less.

And I stated that people also will not like the complexity of a VR headset even when sitting in front of a PC.

In another 10 - 20 years, perhaps that'll be the era of VR. But right now there's too much working against it no matter who thinks it's the next best thing. Hence the extremely low adoption figures.

 

[heatlesssun]

This is just the same list of issues that no one is debating. But comparing the Powerglove, a single product by a single company to an entire industry with how many players involved at this point with no signs of slowing any time soon? A tenuous connection at best at this point. And PC VR doesn't have to be everywhere anymore than high end gaming PCs in order for it to thrive and survive. You say that Linux PC gaming is doing well and it's certainly not mainstream at this point and doesn't have to be to continue on.

I find it a compelling experience with good content, from sitting piloting a starship to waving my hands and dodging simulated bullets to shooting things. I have no idea what your reference to crosshairs being in a different plane means. That's probably something that looks odd with a VR game in a 2D video.

 

[BulletDust]

This is just the same list of issues that no one is debating. But comparing the Powerglove, a single product by a single company to an entire industry with how many players involved at this point with no signs of slowing any time soon? A tenuous connection at best at this point. And PC VR doesn't have to be everywhere anymore than high end gaming PCs in order for it to thrive and survive. You say that Linux PC gaming is doing well and it's certainly not mainstream at this point and doesn't have to be to continue on.

I find it a compelling experience with good content, from sitting piloting a starship to waving my hands and dodging simulated bullets to shooting things. I have no idea what your reference to crosshairs being in a different plane means. That's probably something that looks odd with a VR game in a 2D video.

You're entitled to your opinion, I disagree. There may be many manufacturers of VR headsets, they're still all essentially the same technology. In fact the fragmentation may actually be another factor not essentially working in favour of VR.

 

[heatlesssun]

You're entitled to your opinion, I disagree. There may be many manufacturers of VR headsets, they're still all essentially the same technology. In fact the fragmentation may actually be another factor not essentially working in favour of VR.

I find it Interesting that some Linux supporters praise Valve for the work it's doing for Linux gaming and how those efforts are going great and will take years to bear significant fruit but have a different take on VR. Clearly Valve is putting significant resources into VR and certainly expected that it would take years for these efforts in a brand new market, at least for them, to mature.

I've not argued against the criticisms you've made about PC VR, anyone who uses this stuff gets all of that. Clearly things have to improve for wider adoption across a range of issues. For some however there are compelling and entertaining experiences even with what is currently available. Whatever happens the current state of VR is nothing like the Powerglove. Far more resources have gone into VR, even just on the PC and there are no signs of things slowing down any time.

If Valve's efforts in Linux gaming make one optimistic about the future of Linux gaming the same could apply to VR enthusiasts.

 

[ChadD]

I find it Interesting that some Linux supporters praise Valve for the work it's doing for Linux gaming and how those efforts are going great and will take years to bear significant fruit but have a different take on VR. Clearly Valve is putting significant resources into VR and certainly expected that it would take years for these efforts in a brand new market, at least for them, to mature.

I've not argued against the criticisms you've made about PC VR, anyone who uses this stuff gets all of that. Clearly things have to improve for wider adoption across a range of issues. For some however there are compelling and entertaining experiences even with what is currently available. Whatever happens the current state of VR is nothing like the Powerglove. Far more resources have gone into VR, even just on the PC and there are no signs of things slowing down any time.

If Valve's efforts in Linux gaming make one optimistic about the future of Linux gaming the same could apply to VR enthusiasts.

We have been seeing the fruits of that effort for a few years now. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention but we can play 3/4 of the top 100 games on steam these days. That is significant. As 90%+ of the people on steam only play a handful of titles and as the same majority is playing titles from those top 100 I would call that a major win already. When we talk about future games using engines can build Linux binaries with no extra developer effort. We aren't talking about 20 years down the road. Games hitting over the next few years can easily support Linux thanks in large part to the effort Valve has put in championing the platform.

I have no idea why we are still arguing about VR yay or nay, or why you are still upset that someone made a powerglove joke. VR may or may not have a future no one knows not you not bullet not me or anyone else, including the people creating the content and hardware. It seems to me its doomed... and it seems to you its going to be the next big thing. I guess we'll see. Valve is hedging their VR bet. They have scaled back $ spent on some of their VR studio software plays at least for now. At the same time they are putting effort and $ into ensuring their Linux platform has support of it. Overall they are spending less on VR then they where, but yes they are ensuring if it does take off Linux won't be let out. On that score I'm glad they are putting the work in just in case... still I doubt its even required. IMO the chances of VR ever breaking even 1% of the gaming market is slim. At that % of the market no studio is getting the 20+ million in funding it takes to create an actual AAA quality game. If all you are going to get is low budget software, you might as well be using Samsung or Google mobile VR... which sure is very lowend right now, but in 2-3 years I would bet money phone hardware will have progressed to the point where the masses won't mind. I'm sure parity with PC hardware is 10 years out but if its 85-90% as good in 2-3 years that is about the only VR play with legs imo. (not looking for an argument back and forth on it heatle... that is my opinion your not going to change it and I didn't state it to change yours.)

 

[heatlesssun]

We have been seeing the fruits of that effort for a few years now. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention but we can play 3/4 of the top 100 games on steam these days. That is significant. As 90%+ of the people on steam only play a handful of titles and as the same majority is playing titles from those top 100 I would call that a major win already. When we talk about future games using engines can build Linux binaries with no extra developer effort. We aren't talking about 20 years down the road. Games hitting over the next few years can easily support Linux thanks in large part to the effort Valve has put in championing the platform.

As you and others point out with VR, you're going to need tons more Linux users for anything resembling mainstream usage. I don't have any idea where you're coming up with a lot of these numbers but any gaming platform needs a certain volume of new content to garner gamer interest. Linux may have a decent percentage of popular older games but I doubt that 90% keep playing exactly the same games forever. That's like saying 90% of people watch the same handful of movies. Linux simply isn't getting enough top tier new games currently.

Of course the same criticism of lack of top tier can be made of PCVR but even there we are starting to see some movement with Fallout 4 and Doom coming even before conventional Linux ports.

I have no idea why we are still arguing about VR yay or nay, or why you are still upset that someone made a powerglove joke. VR may or may not have a future no one knows not you not bullet not me or anyone else, including the people creating the content and hardware. It seems to me its doomed... and it seems to you its going to be the next big thing. I guess we'll see. Valve is hedging their VR bet. They have scaled back $ spent on some of their VR studio software plays at least for now. At the same time they are putting effort and $ into ensuring their Linux platform has support of it. Overall they are spending less on VR then they where, but yes they are ensuring if it does take off Linux won't be let out. On that score I'm glad they are putting the work in just in case... still I doubt its even required. IMO the chances of VR ever breaking even 1% of the gaming market is slim. At that % of the market no studio is getting the 20+ million in funding it takes to create an actual AAA quality game. If all you are going to get is low budget software, you might as well be using Samsung or Google mobile VR... which sure is very lowend right now, but in 2-3 years I would bet money phone hardware will have progressed to the point where the masses won't mind. I'm sure parity with PC hardware is 10 years out but if its 85-90% as good in 2-3 years that is about the only VR play with legs imo. (not looking for an argument back and forth on it heatle... that is my opinion your not going to change it and I didn't state it to change yours.)

Nothing to be upset about. I doubt any active VR user would see much connection between VR and the Powerglove. And even if VR is doomed down the road it's far from doomed right now. Not sure where you got that Valve was scaling back any VR efforts. they just added one recently with macOS support. Maybe they have reprioritized things, that's certainly a common occurrence. As for insuring Linux doesn't get left behind if VR takes off, SO far they haven't done the greatest job on the Linux beta. As I posted earlier even Linux game developers very recently are having difficulty getting Linux Steam VR setup. In reading through what's out there on the subject there are still tons of problems and it doesn't look like a 2017 production release is in the cards.