Nvidia CEO To Break Major Gaming & VR News At CES 2017 Keynote

[triss]

I see VR going the same was as 3D did sadly. Yes its a nice thing but expensive and out of reach for the majority so will slowly die out unless things change

 

[Doogles]

I see VR going the same was as 3D did sadly. Yes its a nice thing but expensive and out of reach for the majority so will slowly die out unless things change

I'll buy one when it is totally wireless and preferably without needing any of those tower lighthouse things to calibrate with. I only like the idea of it being totally wireless without anything to get tangled up with, one displayport might be okay though. I'd also want to see the price drop slightly, although I'd spend £600 on one if the games and media (Porn defo) were out for it.

 

[AllBodies]

I see VR going the same was as 3D did sadly. Yes its a nice thing but expensive and out of reach for the majority so will slowly die out unless things change

It is still kind of in very-advanced-tech-demo mode. The technology isn't really 'finished'.

I think it won't become the go-to gaming method until everyone is happy with a movement solution. Clearly games like fallout/skyrim are AMAZING candidates for VR, but you need to be able to move properly over long distance. Teleporting all over skyrim is stupid and only being put up with as a first try.

Equally, every VR game being 'stationary' (as in you're in one place), like being a pilot, will not allow there to be enough variety in games.

I'm not sure it'll all REALLY come together before we can have some kind of matrix/SAO style VR where you lie down but still move/feel in VR.

Coming from someone with a Vive, and will happily buy future devices to fund further development (as long as they're a decent upgrade of course).

 

[drunkenmaster]

People and VR companies need to understand why VR is immersive and what games people will really play on it. The gimmicks will put way way more people off than get them buying.

Pool, wow, amazingly bland demo with rubbish inaccurate controls. You know how many vids I've seen of people playing 'normal' AAA games in 3d, sitting at a keyboard and mouse just having a better more immersive experience.... honestly I don't think a single one. Every video is some person making an idiot of himself or people laughing at him all the while playing a ridiculously basic demo. It's the same spiel as the Wii, idiots shaking their arms around, hilarious right. People fell for it once and then never actually played their Wii after 2 weeks because those games suck. There is zero depth, the constraints on standing up to play are that most games end up sucking... most people don't want to play for long or the limited games.

Sell VR on an improved NORMAL gaming experience, and let the gimmicks be a very minor add on that people can take or leave. Right now every viral vid I see shows VR gaming to be crap, that company after company think waving your arms about like an idiot is amazing and actual gameplay is irrelevant.

You know what happens if you sit at your desk, keyboard and mouse, load up say skyrim, play the game just in 3d but with an amazing field of view and being inside that world... that is what VR is about. The control method is just a control method. MOtion controls are no more real than a mouse, if anything attempting a 'realistic' movement with zero realistic feedback from doing it makes it significantly less immersive.

Motion control, standing to play, these things are working against VR rather than selling it.

If I could ditch my screens, jump into a world and play any of the great games I have with a VR headset would be great, but ditching great games to play stupid games standing up and waving my arms about wouldn't.

Work with AAA titles, get the FOV correct for the heatset, get 3d working perfectly and you have the driving force for people to buy into VR. Work in effectively basic mobile style games with zero depth, zero complexity but motion control and you have the basis for driving people away from adopting VR.

 

[AllBodies]

People and VR companies need to understand why VR is immersive and what games people will really play on it. The gimmicks will put way way more people off than get them buying.

Pool, wow, amazingly bland demo with rubbish inaccurate controls. You know how many vids I've seen of people playing 'normal' AAA games in 3d, sitting at a keyboard and mouse just having a better more immersive experience.... honestly I don't think a single one. Every video is some person making an idiot of himself or people laughing at him all the while playing a ridiculously basic demo. It's the same spiel as the Wii, idiots shaking their arms around, hilarious right. People fell for it once and then never actually played their Wii after 2 weeks because those games suck. There is zero depth, the constraints on standing up to play are that most games end up sucking... most people don't want to play for long or the limited games.

Sell VR on an improved NORMAL gaming experience, and let the gimmicks be a very minor add on that people can take or leave. Right now every viral vid I see shows VR gaming to be crap, that company after company think waving your arms about like an idiot is amazing and actual gameplay is irrelevant.

You know what happens if you sit at your desk, keyboard and mouse, load up say skyrim, play the game just in 3d but with an amazing field of view and being inside that world... that is what VR is about. The control method is just a control method. MOtion controls are no more real than a mouse, if anything attempting a 'realistic' movement with zero realistic feedback from doing it makes it significantly less immersive.

Motion control, standing to play, these things are working against VR rather than selling it.

If I could ditch my screens, jump into a world and play any of the great games I have with a VR headset would be great, but ditching great games to play stupid games standing up and waving my arms about wouldn't.

Work with AAA titles, get the FOV correct for the heatset, get 3d working perfectly and you have the driving force for people to buy into VR. Work in effectively basic mobile style games with zero depth, zero complexity but motion control and you have the basis for driving people away from adopting VR.

This is basically what I was getting at.

However, I think you're being short-sighted about 'motion controls'. It's not that they're motion controls, it's that they're translating your body into the world. A subtle, but VERY important difference.

It's the difference between you sending a command to the character you're controlling to raise their shield or look down their scope to fire, and YOU raising YOUR shield, or YOU looking down YOUR scope.

If you want VR to be VR, and not just a 3D surround monitor, you need to translate your actions into the world, rather than 'give commands'.

 

[TheRealDeal]

This is basically what I was getting at.

However, I think you're being short-sighted about 'motion controls'. It's not that they're motion controls, it's that they're translating your body into the world. A subtle, but VERY important difference.

It's the difference between you sending a command to the character you're controlling to raise their shield or look down their scope to fire, and YOU raising YOUR shield, or YOU looking down YOUR scope.

If you want VR to be VR, and not just a 3D surround monitor, you need to translate your actions into the world, rather than 'give commands'.

+1

I like the star wars demo for this. The lightsabers felt good. Pushing buttons and stuff like that feels good. Sword and shield as you say should translate well. Guns already feel ok.

It's certainly no where near perfect but after spending a lot of time using a Vive I can see the potential in the hand controls.

 

[drunkenmaster]

This is basically what I was getting at.

However, I think you're being short-sighted about 'motion controls'. It's not that they're motion controls, it's that they're translating your body into the world. A subtle, but VERY important difference.

It's the difference between you sending a command to the character you're controlling to raise their shield or look down their scope to fire, and YOU raising YOUR shield, or YOU looking down YOUR scope.

If you want VR to be VR, and not just a 3D surround monitor, you need to translate your actions into the world, rather than 'give commands'.

That just ends up more immersion breaking in the end, you raise a shield, which has no weight, then you see the impact, but feel nothing. But the real immersion breaking part is, you swing your sword, lets say from the right sweeping all the way left, but in the game your sword gets blocked half way... yet your arm is now all the way left, you have a visual disconnect and no feedback to stop you and are now completely add odds with the world you're playing in. You've moved all the way left, but your sword is on the right, you now move your arm to the middle, but your sword due to that movement has moved off to the right. Motion controls absolutely fail to work because they will never translate into the game world because the game world has reactions to your movement but in the real world you don't.

This is where handing off controls to keyboard/mouse just wins, massively. I press the button to swing, my character's sword swings, if it gets blocked by the character or not, there is no disconnect there, no immersion breaking. Have you ever once wanted to raise a shield in a game, pressed the button and in game seen a shield be smashed, see it absorb a blow or whatever else, and felt broken out of the immersion of the game you are in because whatever happened you didn't feel it? No, you just accept, left mouse button is sword swing, right is put shield up, I won't get any feedback, immersion won't be broken because you just play by a different set of rules.

Motion controls fundamentally do not work because you're trying to translate real body movements into a world which can't and won't ever accept them. You can't walk around Skyrim... standing in place in your living room. You can't swing a sword and not have the game constantly break your immersion when your real world movements don't mimic your in game movements because the world there is fighting back but not in real life.

Every single game I've played or seen that uses motion control has crap motion control, with a complete and massive disconnect between what I'm doing and what happens in the game. When you just press a mouse button, you've already made that disconnect without constantly being reminded of it in game. I accept that the impulse to press a button causes me to shoot, or swing a sword, or whatever else, without feedback and it won't ever do something I don't command. This is also ignoring that with motion control the number of buttons and controls is seriously limited.


On the whole this is the point, virtual reality is virtual reality, motion controls are motion controls. VR is about putting your head into the game world by blocking out everything but that world, that is where the immersion is. Motion controls can be used in any game, VR or not, and they absolutely always suck.

Everyone got excited about Wii, and Kinnect, and everyone played a boxing or sports game on one of them... for 30 minutes, before you realise that throwing a punch with no impact, throwing a bowling ball with no actual ball, or hitting a tennis ball with no racquet.... sucks. Because the simple fact is, it's not real, it will never be real, and thinking it will feel real and finding out it doesn't is the reason that 100mil people bought a Wii and probably 80-90mil barely played the thing for more than two weeks.

VR, up until we can 'plug in' and have something send electrical impulses into our head to mimic being hit and feel the resistance when throwing a punch or swinging a sword, is and should be about transporting you into the game world via the headset and nothing else. VR + motion controls is fine and make some games for it, but you'll find most will flop badly. I understand that the concept of a real VR like the matrix is awesome, and that motion controls where the game and our actions match would be great, but we aren't remotely close to the tech to do that.

 

[mahius]

I'm calling it right now... Nvidia have made their own VR headset. And if you thought current VR was too expensive, then say hello to Nvidia pricing. Nvidia Titan VR headset...
available soon at a 4 digit price.

 

[lurkio]

hopefully the news will be that their prices wont be so urine extractingly high ?

 

[Bonjour]

He is Batman

 

[Seanspeed]

That just ends up more immersion breaking in the end, you raise a shield, which has no weight, then you see the impact, but feel nothing. But the real immersion breaking part is, you swing your sword, lets say from the right sweeping all the way left, but in the game your sword gets blocked half way... yet your arm is now all the way left, you have a visual disconnect and no feedback to stop you and are now completely add odds with the world you're playing in. You've moved all the way left, but your sword is on the right, you now move your arm to the middle, but your sword due to that movement has moved off to the right. Motion controls absolutely fail to work because they will never translate into the game world because the game world has reactions to your movement but in the real world you don't.

This is where handing off controls to keyboard/mouse just wins, massively. I press the button to swing, my character's sword swings, if it gets blocked by the character or not, there is no disconnect there, no immersion breaking. Have you ever once wanted to raise a shield in a game, pressed the button and in game seen a shield be smashed, see it absorb a blow or whatever else, and felt broken out of the immersion of the game you are in because whatever happened you didn't feel it? No, you just accept, left mouse button is sword swing, right is put shield up, I won't get any feedback, immersion won't be broken because you just play by a different set of rules.

Motion controls fundamentally do not work because you're trying to translate real body movements into a world which can't and won't ever accept them. You can't walk around Skyrim... standing in place in your living room. You can't swing a sword and not have the game constantly break your immersion when your real world movements don't mimic your in game movements because the world there is fighting back but not in real life.

Every single game I've played or seen that uses motion control has crap motion control, with a complete and massive disconnect between what I'm doing and what happens in the game. When you just press a mouse button, you've already made that disconnect without constantly being reminded of it in game. I accept that the impulse to press a button causes me to shoot, or swing a sword, or whatever else, without feedback and it won't ever do something I don't command. This is also ignoring that with motion control the number of buttons and controls is seriously limited.


On the whole this is the point, virtual reality is virtual reality, motion controls are motion controls. VR is about putting your head into the game world by blocking out everything but that world, that is where the immersion is. Motion controls can be used in any game, VR or not, and they absolutely always suck.

Everyone got excited about Wii, and Kinnect, and everyone played a boxing or sports game on one of them... for 30 minutes, before you realise that throwing a punch with no impact, throwing a bowling ball with no actual ball, or hitting a tennis ball with no racquet.... sucks. Because the simple fact is, it's not real, it will never be real, and thinking it will feel real and finding out it doesn't is the reason that 100mil people bought a Wii and probably 80-90mil barely played the thing for more than two weeks.

VR, up until we can 'plug in' and have something send electrical impulses into our head to mimic being hit and feel the resistance when throwing a punch or swinging a sword, is and should be about transporting you into the game world via the headset and nothing else. VR + motion controls is fine and make some games for it, but you'll find most will flop badly. I understand that the concept of a real VR like the matrix is awesome, and that motion controls where the game and our actions match would be great, but we aren't remotely close to the tech to do that.

You are absolutely clueless about this and have obviously never tried VR with motion controls.

It is NOT the same as Kinect or Wii at all. For one, Wii's motion controls are quite a bit different. It is more like a laser pointer style control with some basic and fiddly gesture capabilities on top of that(waggle mainly). I personally quite liked the Wiimote and nunchuck setup, but it's nothing like the motion controls we're talking about with VR, even ignoring the VR part of it.

Kinect is also reasonably different in that it is high-latency and lacks accuracy and is functionally quite a bit different. It simply never worked all that well.

I actually like both of these systems. Wii games made some fun and innovative uses of its motion control schemes. And Kinect was at least interesting technology, using depth sensing cameras and all for full-body tracking in an affordable home setup.

BUT. The motion controllers we're talking about with the Vive wands and Oculus Touch and all are a different world. For one, unlike the Wii pointer controls, Vive and Touch are *3d, spatial* controllers. They are positionally tracked in all three dimensions of space. And unlike Kinect, the tracking is super low latency and done with sub-millimeter precision.

When you combine that kind of 3d motion controllers with that level of tracking in a VR environment, it's a game-changer. At no point will you ever remotely accuse the experience of being anything like the Wii or Kinect once you actually try it. They simply become natural, inherent extensions of yourself. You will see soon enough and will feel quite silly for making the arguments you are now.

 

[Boomstick777]

Meanwhile at Nvidia HQ..

 

[smilertoo]

Going to announce that after convincing people that pascal cards were good value, nVidia now have enough money to build a giant gold pyramid that he's going to live in.

 

[Pottsey]

“When you combine that kind of 3d motion controllers with that level of tracking in a VR environment, it's a game-changer. At no point will you ever remotely accuse the experience of being anything like the Wii or Kinect once you actually try it.”

You are wrong I used VR a few times and it’s just like the Wii or Kinect and just as bad. It’s not a game-changer and I had all the same problems with the Vive controllers as I do with the Wii controllers.

VR is fundamentally flawed with a few exceptions. Cockpit style games like when you sit in a spaceship or a racing car work fantastic in VR but as soon as you get a game that requires you to move room to room the VR interface falls down and the game has to resort to gimmicks that just don’t work long term.

My experience is that VR only works in a very limited subset of games. Outside of that small subset of games VR has no real depth, over simple interfaces and no real gameplay.

 

[V F]

Meanwhile at Nvidia HQ..

 

[Seanspeed]

You are wrong I used VR a few times and it’s just like the Wii or Kinect and just as bad.

I can confirm you are a liar.

Or maybe you actually never used the Wii or Kinect to understand the differences.

This is just laughable nonsense, either way. I'm not trying to be dismissive here, but it's like somebody saying that a Titan X is a bad card for 1080p users. It's a completely ridiculous and ignorant opinion.

I can only assume that your experience with VR had nothing to do with actual motion controls and was probably quite a while ago, not using any of the software released since the consumer releases of these VR setups.

Either that, or you're simply making this all up, which is a very real possibility with such an asinine comment like that.

 

[AllBodies]

That just ends up more immersion breaking in the end, you raise a shield, which has no weight, then you see the impact, but feel nothing. But the real immersion breaking part is, you swing your sword, lets say from the right sweeping all the way left, but in the game your sword gets blocked half way... yet your arm is now all the way left, you have a visual disconnect and no feedback to stop you and are now completely add odds with the world you're playing in. You've moved all the way left, but your sword is on the right, you now move your arm to the middle, but your sword due to that movement has moved off to the right. Motion controls absolutely fail to work because they will never translate into the game world because the game world has reactions to your movement but in the real world you don't.

This is where handing off controls to keyboard/mouse just wins, massively. I press the button to swing, my character's sword swings, if it gets blocked by the character or not, there is no disconnect there, no immersion breaking. Have you ever once wanted to raise a shield in a game, pressed the button and in game seen a shield be smashed, see it absorb a blow or whatever else, and felt broken out of the immersion of the game you are in because whatever happened you didn't feel it? No, you just accept, left mouse button is sword swing, right is put shield up, I won't get any feedback, immersion won't be broken because you just play by a different set of rules.

Motion controls fundamentally do not work because you're trying to translate real body movements into a world which can't and won't ever accept them. You can't walk around Skyrim... standing in place in your living room. You can't swing a sword and not have the game constantly break your immersion when your real world movements don't mimic your in game movements because the world there is fighting back but not in real life.

Every single game I've played or seen that uses motion control has crap motion control, with a complete and massive disconnect between what I'm doing and what happens in the game. When you just press a mouse button, you've already made that disconnect without constantly being reminded of it in game. I accept that the impulse to press a button causes me to shoot, or swing a sword, or whatever else, without feedback and it won't ever do something I don't command. This is also ignoring that with motion control the number of buttons and controls is seriously limited.


On the whole this is the point, virtual reality is virtual reality, motion controls are motion controls. VR is about putting your head into the game world by blocking out everything but that world, that is where the immersion is. Motion controls can be used in any game, VR or not, and they absolutely always suck.

Everyone got excited about Wii, and Kinnect, and everyone played a boxing or sports game on one of them... for 30 minutes, before you realise that throwing a punch with no impact, throwing a bowling ball with no actual ball, or hitting a tennis ball with no racquet.... sucks. Because the simple fact is, it's not real, it will never be real, and thinking it will feel real and finding out it doesn't is the reason that 100mil people bought a Wii and probably 80-90mil barely played the thing for more than two weeks.

VR, up until we can 'plug in' and have something send electrical impulses into our head to mimic being hit and feel the resistance when throwing a punch or swinging a sword, is and should be about transporting you into the game world via the headset and nothing else. VR + motion controls is fine and make some games for it, but you'll find most will flop badly. I understand that the concept of a real VR like the matrix is awesome, and that motion controls where the game and our actions match would be great, but we aren't remotely close to the tech to do that.

I'd be interested to know if you've had the chance of an extended play session with a Vive? (which is generally considered the best package at the moment)

I have one, and I can attest to it being lightyears ahead of the Kinect or Wiimote.

At the same time though, you are absolutely right about the limitations of a sword/shield type scenario. And I did mention previously I do not consider the tech to be 'finished', but more like a far-along tech demo. And certainly worthy of giving funding for further development.

If you avoid situations where there are glaring limitations to the control type, it is much better to translate your body into the game than send commands. Let's take shooting a handgun as quite a good one. The controllers do have haptic feedback, and are shaped similar to how you hold a gun as well. Also the tracking is 1:1 extremely accurate.

If you get a scenario where it 'all comes together' your brain will actually 'fill in the gaps' to some extent as well. You may have heard that before and think it's a trope, but it definitely does happen. I made a point to also get good quality audio for my Vive to help with immersion, and there are certain experiences which are extremely immersive and convincing.

In closing though, I still want to see a race towards some kind of brain communication as you mentioned, to mimic feeling, and that sort of thing. Rather than complacency that just Vive 2, 3, etc. with better specs but the same thing is enough in the long run.


EDIT: And also I'd like to add, despite my enthusiasm for VR, I'd absolutely not recommend someone buy one currently unless they can very comfortably do so and/or view it more like a kickstarter than a final polished product.

 

[Pottsey]

I can confirm you are a liar.

Or maybe you actually never used the Wii or Kinect to understand the differences.

This is just laughable nonsense, either way. I'm not trying to be dismissive here, but it's like somebody saying that a Titan X is a bad card for 1080p users. It's a completely ridiculous and ignorant opinion.

I can only assume that your experience with VR had nothing to do with actual motion controls and was probably quite a while ago, not using any of the software released since the consumer releases of these VR setups.

Either that, or you're simply making this all up, which is a very real possibility with such an asinine comment like that.

Really you can confirm I am a liar when I still have my receipt from my local museum/arcade which has VR and Kinect. I had to take a trip to my local city and book to access both.

I had all the same problems with the Vive motion controller as I did with Kinetic and Wii. So you are flat out wrong some of us do not like the motions controls in VR and do not find it a game changer. My guess is you are new to VR are still in the starting wow factor stage. Once the wow factor wears off you will most likely see what I mean about how VR doesn't work apart from a tiny subset of games.

 

[maonayze]

I'm calling it right now... Nvidia have made their own VR headset. And if you thought current VR was too expensive, then say hello to Nvidia pricing. Nvidia Titan VR headset...
available soon at a 4 digit price.

and only compatible with Nvidia Cards....I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case here.

I'll take a guess what they will reveal though....a VR HMD with Gsync support. That would be interesting.

 

[beany_bot]

and only compatible with Nvidia Cards....I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case here.

I'll take a guess what they will reveal though....a VR HMD with Gsync support. That would be interesting.

nah nah thats not how it works. It will work with AMD cards. But gimped to half the FPS.