Casques VR : Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, PSVR, etc...

[BennJ]

Quand je vous dis qu'il faut relancer les salles d'arcade !

C'est qu'il y croit en plus le pépé

[Ummagumma]

Sacré dispositif !

Pendant ce temps là chez Nintendo les ingénieurs s'activent aussi sur la réalité virtuelle (voir à 1m54s) :

[KillerSe7ven]

Oulà tu sors les archives de compétition, je ne suis pas sûr qu'on aura encore droit à ce type de communication avec le nouveau président, c'est dommage, à défaut de jeux, faut reconnaître que c'était marrant. La réalité virtuelle et Nintendo, c'est un peu particulier. Ils y étaient totalement hermétiques il y a encore quelques années mais ils semblent moins réfractaires aujourd'hui. On dirait qu'ils tâtent le marché.

[tfpsly]

Fb/Oculus condamné à payer un demi-milliards de $ à Zenimax/IdSoftware.
Oculus lawsuit ends with half billion dollar judgment awarded to ZeniMax

In awarding ZeniMax $500 million, the jury also said that Oculus did not misappropriate trade secrets as contended by ZeniMax.

Of the $500 million, Oculus is paying out $200 million for breaking the NDA and $50 million for copyright infringement. Oculus and Luckey each have to pay $50 million for false designation. And Iribe has to pay $150 million for the same, final count.

[Darkhan]

Ils vont faire appel apperemment mais ce n'est bon dans tous les cas en termes d'image sur un media naissant

[tfpsly]

Commentaire de Carmack sur Facebook sur le jugement (en spoiler car un peu long):

The Zenimax vs Oculus trial is over. I disagreed with their characterization, misdirection, and selective omissions. I never tried to hide or wipe any evidence, and all of my data is accounted for, contrary to some stories being spread.

Being sued sucks. For the most part, the process went as I expected.

The exception was the plaintiff’s expert that said Oculus’s implementations of the techniques at issue were “non-literally copied” from the source code I wrote while at Id Software.

This is just not true. The authors at Oculus never had access to the Id C++ VR code, only a tiny bit of plaintext shader code from the demo. I was genuinely interested in hearing how the paid expert would spin a web of code DNA between completely unrelated codebases.

Early on in his testimony, I wanted to stand up say “Sir! As a man of (computer) science, I challenge you to defend the efficacy of your methodology with data, including false positive and negative rates.” After he had said he was “Absolutely certain there was non-literal copying” in several cases, I just wanted to shout “You lie!”. By the end, after seven cases of “absolutely certain”, I was wondering if gangsters had kidnapped his grandchildren and were holding them for ransom.

If he had said “this supports a determination of”, or dozens of other possible phrases, then it would have fit in with everything else, but I am offended that a distinguished academic would say that his ad-hoc textual analysis makes him “absolutely certain” of anything. That isn’t the language of scientific inquiry.

The notion of non-literal copying is probably delicious to many lawyers, since a sufficient application of abstraction and filtering can show that just about everything is related. There are certainly some cases where it is true, such as when you translate a book into another language, but copyright explicitly does not apply to concepts or algorithms, so you can’t abstract very far from literal copying before comparing. As with many legal questions, there isn’t a bright clear line where you need to stop.

The analogy that the expert gave to the jury was that if someone wrote a book that was basically Harry Potter with the names changed, it would still be copyright infringement. I agree; that is the literary equivalent of changing the variable names when you copy source code. However, if you abstract Harry Potter up a notch or two, you get Campbell’s Hero’s Journey, which also maps well onto Star Wars and hundreds of other stories. These are not copyright infringement.

There are objective measures of code similarity that can be quoted, like the edit distance between abstract syntax trees, but here the expert hand identified the abstract steps that the code fragments were performing, made slides that nobody in the courtroom could actually read, filled with colored boxes outlining the purportedly analogous code in each case. In some cases, the abstractions he came up with were longer than the actual code they were supposed to be abstracting.

It was ridiculous. Even without being able to read the code on the slides, you could tell the steps varied widely in operation count, were often split up and in different order, and just looked different.

The following week, our side’s code expert basically just took the same slides their expert produced (the judge had to order them to be turned over) and blew each of them up across several slides so you could actually read them. I had hoped that would have demolished the credibility of the testimony, but I guess I overestimated the impact.

Notably, I wasn’t allowed to read the full expert report, only listen to him in trial, and even his expert testimony in trial is under seal, rather than in the public record. This is surely intentional -- if the code examples were released publicly, the internet would have viciously mocked the analysis. I still have a level of morbid curiosity about the several hundred-page report.

The expert witness circuit is surely tempting for many academics, since a distinguished expert can get paid $600+ an hour to prepare a weighty report that supports a lawyer’s case. I don’t have any issue with that, but testifying in court as an expert should be as much a part of your permanent public record as the journal papers you publish. In many cases, the consequences are significant. There should be a danger to your reputation if you are imprudent.

[Kolian]

Apple lance son casque VR

La VR, cette nouvelle technologie qui va cartonner

Exemple d'expérience qui ne manque pas de souffle en VR

[evangelion77]

L'objectif fixé par Sony (un million de ventes) sera très certainement atteint. Le directeur de Sony Interactive Entertainment, Andrew House, a annoncé le chiffre de 915 000 casques le 19 février lors d'une interview, malgré des problèmes d'approvisionnement. On est donc loin du flop distillé par les technophobes. À titre de comparaison, l'estimation, fin 2016, des ventes d'Oculus Rift s'élèvent à 243 000 et celles du HTC Vive à 430 000.

[Darkhan]

De mémoire Sony tablait sur 2M avant de raviser à la baisse de moitié peu avant le lancement
Aprés pour un nouveau marché cela reste pas mal.
Mais il y a encore beaucoup à affaire pour que cela s'ancre durablement dans le paysage (PSVR ou autres)

[Kolian]

et combien de casque ont fini dans un placard ?

[Darkhan]

C'est la bonne question

[alan.dub]

[Darkhan]

[evangelion77]

Mise à jour disponible pour le PS VR. La version 2.5 apporte une amélioration de la résolution du mode cinématique et la prise en charge des BD 3D.

[Columbo]

Les blu ray 3D ? Ca voudrait dire qu'on peut voir ces disques en 3D avec le casque ? Pas forcément la nouvelle de l'année mais bon, c'est toujours un plus!

Pour ce qui est des gros jeux en VR sur PS4, on ne peut pas franchement dire que ça se bouscule... La bulle serait-elle déjà en train d'éclater ou bien faut-il attendre l'E3 pour avoir des annonces fracassantes ? Suspense!