Hololens kit $3,000?

DevKit price point: I think it's pretty cheap compared to console dev kits we've had in the past, but unfortunately most consumers are going to compare it to the Rift and Vive. You have to remember it's a self-contained computer. It's like comparing a snorkel to full SCUBA gear.

AR vs. VR: No idea, because I haven't tried a Hololens yet and I'm not sure if I want to spend that much to potentially be disappointed. I got a Rift DK2 and was incredibly disappointed.

HoloStudio: I think HoloStudio will get just as convoluted the more features of Blender/Maya/etc you try to make it match. It seems like it could be a useful *addition* to the 3D modeling ecosystem.

I strongly suspect the HoloLens kits are being given out at a per-unit loss. In any case, the pricing isn't a limiting factor for the number of units they're making or the people who are slated to receive them in the first round(s). Signing up a lot of broke developers simply isn't a relevant concern right now.

I still personally feel that VR is massively over-hyped and has about as much of a future as 3D TVs (read: huge development push from manufacturers but next to zero uptake by the actual consumers) or the Kinect (read: sold as the next great thing from Microsoft, but only really used for dance games) or the Wii remote (read: innovative change to control schemes that only really worked well in Wii Sports). AR at least has a commercially-viable future... in industrial, medical, and engineering sectors, not your average consumer household. $3k is damn cheap for bleeding-edge industrial technology.

I will probably never play a lot with VR headsets, I did a eye laser surgery last year, and I would like to not smash my "new" lifted 1.4/1.0 corneas.

Hololens looks more entangling to me, at least in non-gaming environment.

What I really want is 120 Hz true 10-bit monitors in every house and HFR movies in every cinema (stereoscopic 3D feels quite always kinda fake and makes me sick).

I'm not so unconvinced of VR as Sean (though I totally agree it has significant hurdles to overcome) but I agree that Hololens-style AR is much more viable as an industrial tool -- medical imaging, engineering, simulation/training are all viable markets on their own; technology-wise, only FOV is holding the current iteration back from being ideal.

For consumer-grade AR experience I'm more keen on CastAR right now, where our mutual friend Allen works. The price-point on their device is consumer-friendly, not far off from availability, and lends itself better to shared experiences, IMO. Its application is more limited than Hololens to be sure, but it has a clear focus on entertainment that Hololens lacks, and can still address a subset of industrial applications.

What do you think of Hololens (developer's edition) pricing point? I think its a bit on the very expensive side

FWIW console developer kits have always had a typical price of about $10k.

If you're a big company, $3k is one of your programmers wages for a week, so it's an affordable cost over a long-term project...

For indies, and garage developers, it's of course too much. We're a bit spoiled these days though... indie devs have got free Xbone's and PS4's and Vive's being thrown at them these days, so they might not realise how much this stuff typically costs :lol:

And can HoloStudio (which allows developers build 3D objects) make tools like Blender, Maya, 3ds Max and similar modelling tools... obsolete? I think (again maybe naively) it would do - why use convoluted tools when HoloStudio would make modelling easy and simple

Nope. By that reasoning, why hasn't SketchUp replaced Blender/Maya/Max?

There's a reason that those tools are convoluted...

On the other hand, an extension for those tools that allows AR and VR integration -- now that would make them even better. Judging scale on a 2D screen is always terrible, but HMD's are amazing for it. VR's motion controllers are also great for making adjustments to scenes by direct manipulation, but not great for doing all the fiddly technical details that high-end modeling requires (at least until someone makes a HMD-friendly version of all those menus).

I will probably never play a lot with VR headsets, I did a eye laser surgery last year, and I would like to not smash my "new" lifted 1.4/1.0 corneas.

What are you talking about? I had laser eye surgery 3 years ago and I've had zero problems using a rift.

If you're "smashing" your hmd into your eyeballs... well, you're doing it wrong. You should probably avoid cars and buildings as well. Also the ground. All of those have a high potential for corneal damage if you smash into them :p

As for the hololens price point, MS have stated that it's not targeted at the gaming market (at least, not initially). As others have pointed out, for industrial, applications, $3k is chump change.

Personally, I don't think hololens as it exists now has a long-term future. The AR tech it uses absolutely does, but my personal opinion is that we'll eventually see the processing side of it off-loaded onto a phone or tablet ( assuming they can overcome the latency issues).

What are you talking about? I had laser eye surgery 3 years ago and I've had zero problems using a rift.

I had an hyper-correction due blue eyes to avoid issue on night-vision (I know this sound a lot "tom clancy's" but I do not know a better term ). Do not misunderstand me: my vision is perfect then even before (1.4/1.0 to 1.5/1.0, before surgery I barely was 1.0/1.0 with contact lenses), it just tire my eyes a lot more. I am also (I was always) used to divert the focus from screen a lot, having a headset upon my eyes does not get me comfortable. I am also unable to focus on less then 15cm from eyes (before the surgery with my crappy vision I was able to focus just after a few couple of centimetres).
Finally, but this is not related to Rift, looking not at low res:size ration screens makes me feels sick and I have difficulties on composing all the image 'cause I focus on the damn pixels (that look huge like potatoes on 1366*768 typical crap laptop screens).

I still personally feel that VR is massively over-hyped and has about as much of a future as 3D TVs (read: huge development push from manufacturers but next to zero uptake by the actual consumers) or the Kinect (read: sold as the next great thing from Microsoft, but only really used for dance games) or the Wii remote (read: innovative change to control schemes that only really worked well in Wii Sports). AR at least has a commercially-viable future... in industrial, medical, and engineering sectors, not your average consumer household. $3k is damn cheap for bleeding-edge industrial technology.

Seconded.

I don't think VR is nearly as big as the gadget crazy minority is making it look like, and the industry is happily playing along. I am pretty sure when the first gadget journalists had their first taste of a GOOD 3D TV, they were all over it (too bad it took the TV industry years to make 3D halfway enjoyable, and they couldn't wait with releasing 3D TV Sets until then)... fast forward 2 years, and they only saw the flaws, the higher price, and the novelty factor was gone.

I predict the same to happen to VR. The first gen VR sets being released soon have solved the most pressing issue (nausea), but there are like a thousand additional immersion blocks (static lenses without eye tracking, cables, heavy VR Goggles, limited or no ability to move around, still pixely displays). Without them removed, VR will always feel like an incomplete expierience once people get used to the novelty.

Especially when we start talking about the myriad of other senses besides the eyes that currently are not catered for with VR goggles.

Add to that the missing killer app, and the general question what exactly VR should be (it is the common problem with things that can be anything... you need to focus on something before it can become any good, and everyone wants it to be something else), and I don't think even a vastly improved 2nd gen can make VR mainstream.

I predict it will take at least 10 years before the hardware becomes totally immersive, yet lightweight and cablefree, AND we have good VR expieriences that do matter to people beyond novelty... and the whole thing is affordable for the common guy that wants to spend 500$ for his system in total, at max!

We are not talking just about faster and cheaper GPUs here, more resolution, or other spec bumps. We are talking about new sensors and actuators not existing yet, about thinking of new ways to make the VR Expierience come alive. Nobody has developed a successfull unit that can synthesize any kind of smell... Nobody has as of yet developed a suit that can really give you the full tactile sensation.

How to keep people lost in a virtual world and walking around secure, as long as they still need to do the walking (read we cannot simulate the whole expierience directly in the brain)?

And more importantly, we are talking about huge social questions. How does society handle people that start living in VR more than reality (same problem as today with the game addicts, but on a whole new level)? How to handle all the abuse going on in the virtual space when it becomes even more "real"?

The general gamer today plays on toasters and complains about current games being almost unplayable at 20 FPS... how do they react when they see the eyewatering price for a 1st gen VR machine? Remember, with VR you cannot lower the FPS below a certain threshold... and lowering the graphics details is pretty weak when the whole point is immersion.

Will they be ready to still pay no chump change for a 1st gen system in 2 years when the 2nd gen VR systems hit the markets, for still way to high prices (those sensor suits and treadmills will not come cheap)?

For the next 5 or 6 years, current gen VR will be the toy of the rich, or people that are ready to spend some cash on their hobby. They are a minority.

It should be pointed out that the "First gen VR sets" sold to consumers were on the market nearly 20 years ago. We're coming a long way from there, and have a long way to go with them.

Will it be expensive and will few adopt it quickly? Yes, of course. However the same can be said about Radios, then TV, then Colour TV, home computers, 3D accelerated computers, HD level resolutions, 4k resolutions, etc.

The most common display size was still a standard 1080 monitor in the steam hardware survey last I had looked (The next most common was smaller, and followed by having TWO 1080 monitors I believe.) and that is ancient tech by today's standards of what can be done.

VR display will have its place. I know that I would much rather drive racing and flight sim games on a medium res VR set compared to flat monitors of a similar computing power, because there is frequently stuff 'in other directions' that I want to glance at than what can be rendered in a setup using multiple panel monitors.

Of course it won't be suitable for everything, but it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be able to be comparable to a high res quality 3 monitor setup and the graphics cards to drive them... Which honestly most sets already are after you account for the cost of 3 good monitors, good stand, and a reliable head tracking device.

Honest question:

If valve's vive is already tracking head's rotation&translation, and has a camera on the outside... what stops this piece of hardware from supporting AR very easily?

I mean, if I know where your head is and what are you looking at... what stops me from showing you the camera input + something added to it?

Honest question:

If valve's vive is already tracking head's rotation&translation, and has a camera on the outside... what stops this piece of hardware from supporting AR very easily?
I mean, if I know where your head is and what are you looking at... what stops me from showing you the camera input + something added to it?

I think I heard that it actually does support that (or will). Could just be rumor. I haven't been keeping close tabs on the Vive yet.

This is critical for me, as I have some cool ideas for VR apps, but ones that still require a normal keyboard. And you need to be able to see where the keyboard is to use it effectively.