Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.

oculus rift support

13...Next

Comments

  • MissFelixiaMissFelixia Posts: 1,164 New Member
    edited June 2014
    yeh probably means oculus rift is dead so will have to wait on another one facebook buying them wasn't the only thing that happened investors pulled from it and everything. so now its not even going to have many big investors in it anymore. and facebook will mess with it eventually to make more money
  • plopppoplopppo Posts: 5,031 Member
    edited June 2014
    You can view The Sims 3 in 3D without a headset - ie just using cheapy anaglyph glasses - which is probably good enough anyway to just see the 3D - it's tied to the screen, so it isn't true surround 3D and it requires 3rd party software which will basically work with most/all games.

    EDIT:

    This sort of thing:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EiHxYVxAiA

    Like watching Jaws 3D.
  • ChannelJohnChannelJohn Posts: 7 New Member
    > It only really works for first person games.

    Not true. I'm a game designer and have been playing with a Rift for the past couple of weeks. It works BRILLIANTLY on all kinds of games. First-person, 3rd-person, photoreal, cartoony... it doesn't matter. Every game I've tried has been WAY more awesome in virtual. It's hard to describe sufficiently, but the sense of "presence" in a game elevates the experience to a completely different level. In a 1st person game, you feel like you are the character. In 3rd person (whether it's a game like the Sims or a strategy game or whatever), it just feels like you're a phantom or a god or a giant floating above your world/toys/playset/whatever. Either way, it feels real, it feels like you're there, and it's a revelation.

    >they would need to add support for it or really just add oculus rift cameras i think it is
    >>I'd rather see them put their time and resources to making the game available/supported for Macs

    Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't take much in the way of time or resources to make a game Rift-ready. Really, it's just a matter of dropping in a second camera at a slight offset from the first and rendering their output with the proper distortion. The games are already rendered with 3D art; you're just watching them in 2D

    In fact, I just downloaded a mod yesterday that takes old games that weren't made for VR and makes them work in virtual. So far, I've been able to play Batman: Arkham City, Metro 2033, Fallout New Vegas, and several others.

    I also have a code package that adds Rift support to games in Unity. Turning a Unity level I've created into a VR level is just a matter of dropping in a camera and takes, literally, a couple of minutes.

    Point being, EA could add Rift support to the Sims in about an hour or two.

    >...Wouldn't a lot of the abilities in the original game be taken away? Like trying to make a baby?...O_o"

    LOL. Nope. It would be the same as it is now. But you'd be floating in 3-dimensional space above the bed (or shower or changing booth) instead of watching it on a flat screen.

    >I would rather see the team work on making a ready and stable game packed with new ideas and content rather than have them waste time basically rewriting the coding for the camera just to incorporate something that, if you actually look at it, is an expensive piece of equipment that not many people have.

    Again, it doesn't take much time at all. And, yeah, for now, it's only early-adopters. But I honestly think you're misreading how big the Rift is going to be in the future. Not just for gaming, but across the board. AR/VR is the next smartphone style revolution. They're starting with gaming in order to gain traction (precisely because that's where the early adopters are), but VR is tech that's going to change the world the way cellphones did. Why do you think Mark Zuckerberg put so much money into the Rift? He knows.

    > If I wanted the game so close to my eyes I'd have my nose pressed up against my monitor :roll:

    Haha. You obviously haven't tried one. Seriously, it's an amazing experience. The current devkits are a little uncomfortable, sure, but that's because they're designed for utility and developing/testing. The consumer version that will (likely) come out in 2015 is going to be designed much more for comfort and ease of use.

    And, man, I can tell you from experience that it doesn't feel like a monitor pressed up against your eyeballs (and certainly doesn't look like one). When you strap on a Rift, the sense of space around you is CRAZY. I've played demos where I'm floating in space, standing on a mountain, tubing down a lazy river, walking through a huge city, and, yes, crammed into a tiny apartment, and they all look and feel like they should. Whatever space they put you in, you're IN IT.

    Try one out if you get the chance. You will retract that statement, I guarantee it.

    >i am one of those who cannot see the point of having oculus rift which is being developed more for shooters and driving .

    It's being developed for A LOT more than that. And it works fantastically on all of them. I've been blown away by how much virtual reality adds to all kinds of games, especially the ones I wouldn't have expected.

    >Also it is too expensive for the average player

    The devkit is expensive because it's not meant for the average player. It's meant for developers. They'll be selling the consumer version at cost (thanks to the infusion of Facebook money, they don't need to make a profit for the first few years), and it'll cost less than a Playstation or XBOX. They're goal is to get it into as many houses as possible (and businesses too, for purposes other than gaming), and they'll price it accordingly.

    >and within a few years will be out of date or surpassed by something else

    Which is different from computers, computer games, game consoles, cellphones, TVs, or most any other product how...?
  • EasyToReadEasyToRead Posts: 7,813 Member
    edited September 2014
    > It only really works for first person games.<br />
    <br />
    Not true. I'm a game designer and have been playing with a Rift for the past couple of weeks. It works BRILLIANTLY on all kinds of games. First-person, 3rd-person, photoreal, cartoony... it doesn't matter. Every game I've tried has been WAY more awesome in virtual. It's hard to describe sufficiently, but the sense of "presence" in a game elevates the experience to a completely different level. In a 1st person game, you feel like you are the character. In 3rd person (whether it's a game like the Sims or a strategy game or whatever), it just feels like you're a phantom or a god or a giant floating above your world/toys/playset/whatever. Either way, it feels real, it feels like you're there, and it's a revelation.<br />
    <br />
    >they would need to add support for it or really just add oculus rift cameras i think it is <br />
    >>I'd rather see them put their time and resources to making the game available/supported for Macs<br />
    <br />
    Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't take much in the way of time or resources to make a game Rift-ready. Really, it's just a matter of dropping in a second camera at a slight offset from the first and rendering their output with the proper distortion. The games are already rendered with 3D art; you're just watching them in 2D<br />
    <br />
    In fact, I just downloaded a mod yesterday that takes old games that weren't made for VR and makes them work in virtual. So far, I've been able to play Batman: Arkham City, Metro 2033, Fallout New Vegas, and several others. <br />
    <br />
    I also have a code package that adds Rift support to games in Unity. Turning a Unity level I've created into a VR level is just a matter of dropping in a camera and takes, literally, a couple of minutes.<br />
    <br />
    Point being, EA could add Rift support to the Sims in about an hour or two.<br />
    <br />
    >...Wouldn't a lot of the abilities in the original game be taken away? Like trying to make a baby?...O_o" <br />
    <br />
    LOL. Nope. It would be the same as it is now. But you'd be floating in 3-dimensional space above the bed (or shower or changing booth) instead of watching it on a flat screen.<br />
    <br />
    >I would rather see the team work on making a ready and stable game packed with new ideas and content rather than have them waste time basically rewriting the coding for the camera just to incorporate something that, if you actually look at it, is an expensive piece of equipment that not many people have. <br />
    <br />
    Again, it doesn't take much time at all. And, yeah, for now, it's only early-adopters. But I honestly think you're misreading how big the Rift is going to be in the future. Not just for gaming, but across the board. AR/VR is the next smartphone style revolution. They're starting with gaming in order to gain traction (precisely because that's where the early adopters are), but VR is tech that's going to change the world the way cellphones did. Why do you think Mark Zuckerberg put so much money into the Rift? He knows. <br />
    <br />
    > If I wanted the game so close to my eyes I'd have my nose pressed up against my monitor :roll:<br />
    <br />
    Haha. You obviously haven't tried one. Seriously, it's an amazing experience. The current devkits are a little uncomfortable, sure, but that's because they're designed for utility and developing/testing. The consumer version that will (likely) come out in 2015 is going to be designed much more for comfort and ease of use. <br />
    <br />
    And, man, I can tell you from experience that it doesn't feel like a monitor pressed up against your eyeballs (and certainly doesn't look like one). When you strap on a Rift, the sense of space around you is CRAZY. I've played demos where I'm floating in space, standing on a mountain, tubing down a lazy river, walking through a huge city, and, yes, crammed into a tiny apartment, and they all look and feel like they should. Whatever space they put you in, you're IN IT.<br />
    <br />
    Try one out if you get the chance. You will retract that statement, I guarantee it.<br />
    <br />
    >i am one of those who cannot see the point of having oculus rift which is being developed more for shooters and driving . <br />
    <br />
    It's being developed for A LOT more than that. And it works fantastically on all of them. I've been blown away by how much virtual reality adds to all kinds of games, especially the ones I wouldn't have expected.<br />
    <br />
    >Also it is too expensive for the average player <br />
    <br />
    The devkit is expensive because it's not meant for the average player. It's meant for developers. They'll be selling the consumer version at cost (thanks to the infusion of Facebook money, they don't need to make a profit for the first few years), and it'll cost less than a Playstation or XBOX. They're goal is to get it into as many houses as possible (and businesses too, for purposes other than gaming), and they'll price it accordingly.<br />
    <br />
    >and within a few years will be out of date or surpassed by something else <br />
    <br />
    Which is different from computers, computer games, game consoles, cellphones, TVs, or most any other product how...?
    A 3 month necro? I'm curious did you make an account just to defend Oculus Rift or something? You only 2 posts have been about this topic only. The bigger question is if you work for Oculus Rift....
    hEFcp6z.gif
  • knazzerknazzer Posts: 3,382 Member
    If the Sims was first person then yeah it would work, but the Oculus is kinda pointless with the Sims 4. Try connecting The Sims 4 up to a 3D TV it looks pretty cool and as good depth.
  • SyroninSyronin Posts: 169 Member
    Oculus rift wouldve worked better in sims 3.. unfortunately they use much less detailed textures in sims 4 which are fine when your camera is at least 5m away but the oculus rift experience will be very disappointing with everything being close up.

    EA are never going to encourage use of oculus rift unless they released hi-res textures for everything in the game which is unlikely to happen. All they probably see is the potential for negative publicity from screenshots taken at close distance that make the game look terrible.

    I am going to get the Oculus rift so would love it if it worked great with sims 4 but I wont get my hopes up. :)
  • lodendsglodendsg Posts: 1 New Member
    > @Syronin said:
    > Oculus rift wouldve worked better in sims 3.. unfortunately they use much less detailed textures in sims 4 which are fine when your camera is at least 5m away but the oculus rift experience will be very disappointing with everything being close up.
    >
    > EA are never going to encourage use of oculus rift unless they released hi-res textures for everything in the game which is unlikely to happen. All they probably see is the potential for negative publicity from screenshots taken at close distance that make the game look terrible.
    >
    > I am going to get the Oculus rift so would love it if it worked great with sims 4 but I wont get my hopes up. :)

    Not sure I agree with the texture point, what I have used of the VR headsets thus far the resolution is lower, you have the same number of pixels but they are split between each eye so basicly half rez.
    The nice aspect of it is head tracking and full field of view, it doesn't make games look better in terms of graphical fidelity in fact it makes them look worse. That said the games I have played with it I prefer it over a monitor and I have mostly played 3rd person/top down views and a few cockpit views.
    Stopped by to see if anyone had a means to get DK2 working with Sims doesn't seem like it
  • ashleyrosey06ashleyrosey06 Posts: 95 Member
    That would be so legit! You create your family in CAS and play as one of the sims through their eyes! I'd be cool if you could look into a mirror and see the reflection of the sim you're playing :smiley:
    In Simlish, we don't say "I love you." We say "Habadu Bashubi", which roughly translates to "I can't move because there is furniture in my way." I think that's absolutely beautiful.• ORIGIN ID: ashleyrosey06 •Ts2 is superior... change my mind ;)
  • SweetieTreatsSweetieTreats Posts: 2,668 Member
    Most people VR tech don't get it but it would be AWSOME!!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top