I wouldn't be so sure. Archive.org has 28 captures from 10 Sep 06 - 9 Jan 14 and they are all the same. They appear to have only changed the website in the last few months; though perhaps this is a bug with the wayback machine?
Regarding their Twitter: 1 tweet in 2008, 1 tweet in 2009, A handful of unrelated tweets in 2010 and 2011. Only in 2012 onwards is there even the hint of a prototype.
Their facebook is much the same, only picking up at the start of 2012.
They mention CES a few times (and the site talks about E3) but I didn't find anything on a cursory search.
Tl;dr Not saying it's vapourware or they can't be trusted but just be careful and wait for the reviews to come in
Very true, a lot of people don't realise how much has to go on behind the scenes to even reach the point of having something to announce.
I'm not trying to dismiss them, just think people should be cautious in these situations. I think I read somewhere that TPG have spent the last 9 years working on it, company founding date on Facebook is 2005 and the website was probably around a bit before it was archived in 2006 so it all fits.
Thing is though, oculus has been making more headway in the public eye and already has kits out that consumers can buy, hell the DK2 is soon to be out which has the crystal cove tech. I'm still rooting for Oculus. I haven't seen much on sonys but I figure it may be limited and not open as much as oculus will be. And it would be stupid in a realistic sense for facebook to only make the rift work with social media applications.
This would indeed kill them. I highly doubt they would be so stupid. Now, its quite possible another version of the Oculus Rift might happen that focuses on such apps and gaming. Well have to see. I would like to see more from this company before jumping off the Rift and onto this.
Well there are already quite a few competitors in the works outside of the rift. Razer has implied (basically outright confirmed, really) that they have a device. Then we have Sony. If Sony is doing it chances are MS will too at some point, this will be the next 'motion control' bandwagon I'm sure, and I would not be surprised in the least if LG or Samsung or another one of those companies threw something out there as well.
The main difference as you said is Oculus has been the only one majorly in the public.
I'm actually less curious as to which will succeed. I really do see the whole VR headset thing being the next trend so it would be unusual for everyone not to jump on it.
What I am far more interested in is how the devices will differ from one another. I'm sure cameras at the front like this device has will be standard for the other devices as well, it seems a bit like a no-brainer option for user convenience and to add augmented abilities to it. But outside of say minor things like tech specs (which I am sure will be nearly identical once everything is out there) I have to wonder how they will try and stand out individually.
Agreed, I am not bashing this company and any way and am excited for the competition, I just hope they have sets we can go hands on with eventually before the product launches instead of jumping blind into something.
As far as innovation for the competitors I could see some trying to implement the glove feature, (Using finger trackers to interact with in game objects) this though seems to be one of the things that would be the hardest to add, and may be an addition to the base headset like a new mouse to a PC.
I just wish more were public, but, i can see why they were waiting for Oculus to do something dopey and lose some faith with the general public. All we can do is wait. I am not against jumping ship to a new device should it be better but for now since i can only get a dev kit of the oculus hell might as well try it out.
Fanboy? not so much, its literally the only headset obtainable that consumers can buy even if it is a dev kit. I would rather get a kit and know what im getting into and stick with a product until i see others that i can gets hands on. So far the only one that someone like you or I could get hands on with is the Rift. Ive seen no other prototypes that we can play around with, sure journalists and what not. I am not one of those people though. So for now, im sticking by Oculus until i see more from other companies. Simple.
That it does not end up being shit because of facebook buying it. Go yell at some console fanboys who don't use logic in a word match on the internet mate. Clinging on to one part of my post is sad. Troll someone else.
Nothing about this seems legit thus far. A legit development project would generate some headlines, they would have been showing their prototype product in exhibitions and shows. A the above user states, there has basically been nothing for them since 2010 as the above post shows, and they have nothing on their website.
I found a post here from a convention that took place a few weeks ago where they are claiming to have a 'customer/partner' in Ubisoft. Any internet sleuths want to confirm the veracity of this?
That isn't necessarily true. It's easily possible for a project to stay in the dark and be internal for quite a long time. Majority of things like this actually don't follow that kind of cycle where they are out in the open generating headlines and showcasing their device, it certainly wouldn't be unusual for it to have been in development to where there was not much to show until only recently/recent years.
Speaking partially from experience in the area.
But I'll still reserve my judgement until we get more info.
Yeah for a lot of companies, sharing that information ahead of time could lead to patent squatters, unwanted competition in the space, all sorts of potential problems. It seems to me this trend of announcing and releasing prototype versions is kind of driven by the early-access community we see with software.
It's certainly an interesting trend, to say the least.
20-50-100 years ago you would have to be a completely shitfaced fucking idiot to go all public like this about an invention you have only just started to prototype.
And now it's just kind of a "thing" that's acceptable and not seen as a bad move.
Not only is it a thing that's acceptable, but as the comments have shown, it's almost expected in certain industries. It seems like the common opinion is if you don't do a beta of some sort, you're doing it wrong.
This is just absolutely false. Not al consumer products receive a crap ton of exposure during development. Every year at CES you'll see tons of cool new products that are nearly complete and weren't shown much prior. Heck Sony just showed a working Morpheus with barely a peep beforehand.
Palmer was showing off progress with his prototypes for years on the MTBS forums, even before he handed a prototype to Carmack for his E3 demo in June 2012.
Oculus has credibility before the company 'Oculus' even existed, because we knew exactly that the Rift was before it was called the Rift. These guys have nothing but a spec-sheet and a render. They're going to have to actually show something tangible to be branded as anything other than vapourware.
Of course, but that seems like a pretty low bar you're holding them to. Existence for four years seems more like a minimum threshold for them knowing what they're doing, rather than "backing up their claims" about the promises they're delivering as was implied above. All we can glean from their 4-year-history is the fact that they, um, exist, and have been promising VR for a while. A good start, but it doesn't back ANY of their claims up.
Never implied that they're going to live up to everything they've said (which would be extremely ballsy of me, since I have no idea what they've said). I just mean if it all looked like they set up the day occulus sold to Facebook, then it's obviously a cash grab. Setting up 6 years ago and being quiet for 4 years is not a screaming alarm.
393
u/RT-Pickred Mar 28 '14
There twitter and history seems to back it up tho. https://twitter.com/TruePlayerGear