The first Eye tracker for the Vive is here... Meet aGlass

[EunSoo]

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/1/15503932/htc-vive-x-7invensun-aglass-eye-tracking-upgrade

 

 

7invensun (a beijing-based company) is now accepting pre-orders for the 'aGlass' next month. It will only be sold in China for the equivalent to $220 and sold internationally around '3rd quarter of 2017.' 

 

Quote

The aGlass consists of two eyepieces that the “average VR user” can fit inside the HTC Vive’s face mask, including three pairs of interchangeable lenses. The eyepieces are connected to the Vive via USB, which will allow the headset to track pupil movement via sensors and infrared lights. It’s an example of HTC’s plan to expand the Vive ecosystem with third-party accessories, including custom controllers and other upgrade kits.

As far as I know, no one has actually tried it so we don't know how well it will work. But anways, Eye tracking will be a very good upgrade for VR. Apart from enhancing the camera, it can be used to add foveated rendering and maybe add some cool narrative scripts. 

 

Quote

Several companies are working with eye tracking and VR, including headset maker Fove; major eye tracking company Tobii; and the startup Eyefluence, which was acquired by Google last year. The is the first time we’ve seen an eye tracking system made expressly as an easy upgrade to a major headset like the Vive, however

so yeah, hopefully it'll be good...

[Guest]

Just wish I had a Vive............

[Teddy07]

Just now, Abyss Gaming said:

Just wish I had a Vive............

Yeah. Watching virtual porn is sure awesome

[Guest]

Just now, Teddy07 said:

Yeah. Watching virtual porn is sure awesome

Well that just went from 0-100 lol

 

shhhh no one needs to know

[KE2012]

Man, that is a lot of dough for what it is, would probably be better off putting it towards a newer GPU.

[tlink]

this is a pretty bad idea since vr isn't even mainstream yet. the games fail to make any money as far as i know, why make game development even more splintered across platforms and features than it already was?

[Bcat00]

Lol, like these vr headset wasnt heavy enough.

lets add more weight yaaaa!!!!

[CatCloud]

59 minutes ago, tlink said:

this is a pretty bad idea since vr isn't even mainstream yet. the games fail to make any money as far as i know, why make game development even more splintered across platforms and features than it already was?

What games? the 90% shitshow ones? or the 10% not garbage games?
This thing wont split anything, its optional, and its up to the devs to integrate it if they want too. If a consumer buys this and fully expect it to work with a game that doesnt support it native then its 100% the consumers fault for being stupid and not checking before hand, or even ask if there will be.

Honestly its not bad either, this might not sell well, but the tech itself has value for the future iteration of headsets.

[tlink]

3 minutes ago, CatCloud said:

What games? the 90% shitshow ones? or the 10% not garbage games?
This thing wont split anything, its optional, and its up to the devs to integrate it if they want too. If a consumer buys this and fully expect it to work with a game that doesnt support it native then its 100% the consumers fault for being stupid and not checking before hand, or even ask if there will be.

Honestly its not bad either, this might not sell well, but the tech itself has value for the future iteration of headsets.

thats my point, the majority is shit. blaming the consumer for buying something useless is not much different than blaming the product for being useless. my point is this: you want to develop a game for vr, you choose a platform (vive, rift etc) or you try to make it for multiple headsets. there already it splinters and waters down. more resources are being spent into the actual platform choice than a good game. now over that they will also have to choose if they want to support an accessory to a headset. devs are barely able to make good games for just vr, let alone with all the optional stuff slapped onto it. every new tech they add costs valuable time especially if it has never been used before, that is why this is splintering. get the baseline good first, then after lets say 2 generations of vr headsets they can experiment with this stuff.

[CatCloud]

1 minute ago, tlink said:

thats my point, the majority is shit. blaming the consumer for buying something useless is not much different than blaming the product for being useless. my point is this: you want to develop a game for vr, you choose a platform (vive, rift etc) or you try to make it for multiple headsets. there already it splinters and waters down. more resources are being spent into the actual platform choice than a good game. now over that they will also have to choose if they want to support an accessory to a headset. devs are barely able to make good games for just vr, let alone with all the optional stuff slapped onto it. every new tech they add costs valuable time especially if it has never been used before, that is why this is splintering. get the baseline good first, then after lets say 2 generations of vr headsets they can experiment with this stuff.

You just described game dev in general...
Barley able to make a good game sounds weird too me, what does that mean? They cant afford it? dont have time? dont have the know-how? all of these? i mean if you dont know how, go learn, if you cant afford it, make something else meanwhile or get money so you can afford it, dont have time?..i dont even....
All above can be said to any game development really.
Optional is optional, you do it later, or you do it from the start, or not at all really..i dont se the issue. IF you cant do it you obviously don´t, nor need to. if there is a demand/request for it, then you consider it and plan out how to get it integrated, if it doesnt work, well you then say it doesnt work.

I disagree regarding experimenting, as i stated before, it can be integrated into future products. why wait two generations when it can be part of the next one or the one after?
ITS THERE MONEY! THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT, that´s how RnD works.. blow resources on trials and errors till you get something.



 

[tlink]

51 minutes ago, CatCloud said:

You just described game dev in general...
Barley able to make a good game sounds weird too me, what does that mean? They cant afford it? dont have time? dont have the know-how? all of these? i mean if you dont know how, go learn, if you cant afford it, make something else meanwhile or get money so you can afford it, dont have time?..i dont even....
All above can be said to any game development really.
Optional is optional, you do it later, or you do it from the start, or not at all really..i dont se the issue. IF you cant do it you obviously don´t, nor need to. if there is a demand/request for it, then you consider it and plan out how to get it integrated, if it doesnt work, well you then say it doesnt work.

I disagree regarding experimenting, as i stated before, it can be integrated into future products. why wait two generations when it can be part of the next one or the one after?
ITS THERE MONEY! THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT, that´s how RnD works.. blow resources on trials and errors till you get something.



 

you're making a black and white fallacy. yes all of that can be said about game development in general, but not at this combination and intensity of it all. who cares if its their money, thats not an argument against my criticism. if you spend your money on child sex slaves you can bet your ass im going to criticize you for that as well. i already explained why wait, because if you fuck up the start there won't be a next generation nor revenue to blow on r&d for it. create a sustainable market, how does that not make sense to you? the current market just isn't sustainable and thus needs to be stabilized so it can go in a steady user base climb. its bad enough as it is that mobile VR is shitting on the public opinion of vr already with a suppar experience. how do you think that public will react when they go to the pc vr market and experience a rag tag of random gadgets which all barely have support or games going for it? its essentially the same as brand image management. it doesn't matter if its a better product because if the public doesn't experience it as superior they will almost never return for it. this is why you see people avoiding brands that they had a single bad hardware experience with (bad RMA service, bad customer service, hardware that breaks quickly, etc, the public isn't logical and by the market economics so shouldn't be the markets.

[Sakkura]

Foveated rendering is interesting, but it's more useful for future VR headsets with higher resolution. The current headsets are not THAT difficult to run, so the added cost of the eye tracking isn't really worth the reduction in PC system requirements it can offer. Paying $220 and wearing a more bulky headset, so you can save $100 on your graphics card? Not the greatest tradeoff...

 

But I'm still happy to see this, because it may help pave the way for eye tracking and foveated rendering in later VR headsets and software, where it will really matter.

[ARikozuM]

6 hours ago, tlink said:

this is a pretty bad idea since vr isn't even mainstream yet. the games fail to make any money as far as i know, why make game development even more splintered across platforms and features than it already was?

That's the wrong way to think. Imagine if the internet or automobile never progressed since "it wasn't mainstream"? Things never start off as mainstream. 

[tlink]

9 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

That's the wrong way to think. Imagine if the internet or automobile never progressed since "it wasn't mainstream"? Things never start off as mainstream. 

i never said it shouldn't progress because it isn't mainstream. strawman.