New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

OculusRiftReady - Marketing Logo

ThomasHThomasH Posts: 42
Brain Burst
edited April 2015 in General
Hi,

I am quite new to this and I am using unity to develop a car experience. We are currently researching implimentation for VR use. I might have missed this but what logo would I use for marketing, showing that my product is "rift-ready"? When or if it is.

I was wondering where that logo is and how the software has to be approved to be rift ready, If at all?

Thanks,
Thomas

Comments

  • zalozalo Posts: 135
    This is the highest res Oculus Logo I've found:
    Oculus_White.jpg

    The font most closely resembles "Slate" (Std Medium/Pro Medium) or "ZionTrain" (Pro Demibold/Cyrillic Demibold).

    Make your own! (And ask Oculus if it's okay!)
  • ThomasHThomasH Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    Thank you!

    I do belive there would be need for an official "oculusReady" logo for a symbiotic partnership though. Would be a blur for the users otherwise?
  • EisernSchildEisernSchild Posts: 198
    Art3mis
    This is exactly what i thought about we definately need sooner or later.

    There should be an official "Requires Oculus Rift HMD" and an official "Better with Oculus Rift HMD" Logo (or call it Sticker).

    We could do some sort of a design contest about that in the developers communtiy. This would also include an official Oculus Rift Font and other Artwork related to the Rift.
  • ThomasHThomasH Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    I agree it would be a good thing both for developers and Oculus to have a common sign or a logo of some sort. Even if in my personal case it wouldnt be a big deal - But to show one is supporting new tech is good.
  • cyberealitycybereality Posts: 26,156 Oculus Staff
    This is a good idea. I will see if we can whip something up.
    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X | MSI X370 Titanium | G.Skill 16GB DDR4 3200 | EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 | Corsair Hydro H110i
    Gigabyte RX Vega 64 x2 | Samsung 960 Evo M.2 500GB | Seagate FireCuda SSHD 2TB | Phanteks ENTHOO EVOLV
  • ThomasHThomasH Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    This is a good idea. I will see if we can whip something up.

    Sounds great!
  • 2EyeGuy2EyeGuy Posts: 1,091
    Trinity
    You might need more than one logo. Like how MTBS3D has different levels of 3D support.

    For example, right now you can play my version of Doom 3 BFG on the Oculus Rift. It has proper 3D rendering, a laser sight, head tracking, and now even head tracking in cutscenes. But it still isn't proper Oculus Rift support, and it's really hard to set it up to use the Rift. It doesn't have a head and neck model, you can't see yourself when you look down, parts of the menus and HUD are off the screen, the PDA just goes full screen and looks terrible, the mouse still controls pitch so looking forwards could have you looking up or down in the game, the head tracking in cutscenes isn't quite right, there are still head kicks, there are effects that (allegedly) only show in one eye, and the gun is basically glued to your head. And it doesn't read the display parameters from the Rift itself, so it might not work right on future Rift versions. And that's not even mentioning the Doom 1 and Doom 2 parts of the game.

    So, what requirements/features should an OculusRiftReady game have? Should there be more than one level of support?

    I've been thinking a bit about what kinds of levels are possible. We may not want a certification level for all of them, but here are the possible levels of support that might exist:

    Absolute minimum:
    Obviously, to be playable at all, a game needs some sort of warping and side by side, even if not 3D, and the GUI needs to be visible and working, with the mouse behaving properly. Some programs can get away with no warping, but side by side, like the original spherical desktop program, or watching 3D movies in windows media player.

    More reasonable minimum:
    Either proper Oculus Rift Stereoscopic 3D without head tracking, or 3DOF head tracking and 2D warping.

    Basic support:
    Can be made to work in Stereoscopic 3D, with head tracking.

    etc., with other levels of support up to...

    Full support:
    Detects Oculus Rift and supports it automatically, without the need to change any settings.
    Reads and uses display parameters from the Oculus Rift.
    Life size, geometrically accurate, stereoscopic 3D rendering, with everything at the correct scale.
    Shadows, lighting, etc are rendered correctly with no stereoscopic flaws.
    Everything is a 3D head-tracked world from beginning to end, with no 2D screens.
    Head tracking (with at least support for 1:1, 360 degree head rotation tracking, with pitch and roll always matching the real world).
    Head and neck rotation model (unless there's positional tracking).
    Independent gun or hand control.
    Can run at 60Hz with minimal latency on target hardware.
    HUD looks and works OK and isn't too intrusive, if present.
    Aiming works OK (not with a 2D cross-hair).
    Supports at least stereo headphones for sound, with correct head tracking.
    Anything that needs to be read is readable somehow.
    No unpleasant forced camera movements.
    Doesn't make you sick unless it's intended to (eg. a rollercoaster), or you are very susceptible to motion sickness.

    Anything else?

    Note that some of those might be impossible with UDK or some other closed-source engines, since they have 2D loading screens with no head tracking.
  • jwilkinsjwilkins Posts: 580
    Art3mis
    Honestly what you describe about Doom 3 is not acceptable. Having different levels is just a cope out. Either everything works in a reasonable way or you go back to the drawing board and fix it.
    (╯°□°)╯︵┻━┻
  • 2EyeGuy2EyeGuy Posts: 1,091
    Trinity
    jwilkins wrote:
    Honestly what you describe about Doom 3 is not acceptable. Having different levels is just a cope out. Either everything works in a reasonable way or you go back to the drawing board and fix it.
    I fixed it so you can look down and see your body now. The other features will take time.
  • VaerraentVaerraent Posts: 25
    How about:

    oculusBronze - provides limited Oculus Rift support, eg. latency issues, 3D not to scale or non-user-configurable etc. Playable but not fully tailored to the Oculus Rift.
    oculusSilver - provides a 'one-size-fits-all' experience with some settings non-configurable, such as Rift FoV or IPD settings or no body model/no mouse deadzone/other niggles that prevent 'full immersion'.
    oculusGold - out-of-the-box compatible with full configuration, eg. Valve's TF2/HL2 efforts when they're merged to stable.

    Alternatively,

    oculusCompatible - provides support for the Oculus but with some limitations, such as non-configurable options or slightly supbar 3D experience.
    oculusReady - provides full support for the Oculus with no limitations and full reconfigurability.
  • svensven Posts: 339
    Hiro Protagonist
    Good idea, however the devil is in the details. Without an adjustable IPD, no logo should be awarded whatsoever.
  • ScotKinneyScotKinney Posts: 20
    Brain Burst
    Any word on an Oculus Logo we can use yet?
  • diogofigueiredodiogofigueiredo Posts: 161
    Art3mis
    Vaerraent wrote:
    oculusCompatible - provides support for the Oculus but with some limitations, such as non-configurable options or slightly supbar 3D experience.
    oculusReady - provides full support for the Oculus with no limitations and full reconfigurability.

    I totally agree with this concept. I think it has to be kept simple. No end user wants to understand 10 different levels of compatibility using different metals to represent (gold, silver, bronze, platinum, steel, iron, copper...). It should be fully compatible, partially compatible or not compatible at all.
    This way, a developer will always work hard to be able to jump to the ultimate "fully compatible" mode.
    Forget NVidia's "The way it's meant to be played". It's "The way it's meant to be lived" now. :D
    Owner of a DK2 since October 2014.
    Anxiously waiting for the delivery of the CV1.
  • AntDX316AntDX316 Posts: 355
    Brain Burst
    This is a good idea. I will see if we can whip something up.

    have a huge statue of the eye at the building like Enron
  • WirlWindWirlWind Posts: 110
    ScotKinney wrote:
    Any word on an Oculus Logo we can use yet?

    Honestly, I personally think that it doesn't really need to be anything other than the Oculus eye logo with "Oculus Ready!" below it.

    Keep it simple, stupid :)

    A white eye and white text on a black background looks professional. You can also add it to places like the corner of a game box or something with relative ease.

    ::EDIT:: For example - I think this would be more than enough (obviously it could use some small touch ups like font and alignment, but I did this in like 5 seconds in paint :P)

    oculusready.png
  • MerkoMerko Posts: 8
    Best i could come up with.

    fplcei.jpg


    Let me know if you want higher res!
  • ChristopheChristophe Posts: 116
    This latest one is inspired! :D

    I wouldn't use "Oculus Ready" though. You don't say that your application is "Microsoft/Apple/Google compatible". You use the name of the product, not the company.
    "Rift Ready" or "Oculus Rift Ready" would be better.

    As a side note:
    An even better solution from a marketing point of view for Oculus: "VR Ready". Associating the word "VR" with the Oculus symbol would help boost the company's image as a VR leader. It would be like saying "WE are VR".
  • ScotKinneyScotKinney Posts: 20
    Brain Burst
    Something official would be a little more reassuring. I'm concerned about putting their logo on my promos without confirmation that it's ok and approved for use.

    Could we get an official response?
  • kernowkernow Posts: 733
    Trinity
    Being "Rift Ready" is one thing, being well implemented is another (good frame rate, menus implemented in a VR friendly way, etc). In the latter, you would need to have your game/simex/demo tested by either Oculus VR, or a trusted third party group that's on the same/similar page (best practices, etc) as Oculus. This is kind of like being allowed by Underwriters Limited to put "UL Listed" on your electrical or electronic product's body and box, or being allowed to put the circled-U mark on your food product (saying it is "kosher") by the Orthodox Union. Not everyone would want to take that extra step, but if you did, it would improve the confidence that the "Rift Ready" label you are already using is actually worthy of that claim (it's like having someone else who is more trusted than you vouch for your claim that it is, in fact, Rift Ready).
  • ScotKinneyScotKinney Posts: 20
    Brain Burst
    I think it's more like days gone by when you'd put "Best viewed in Netscape" or Internet Explorer on your website. Either company was quite happy to have you put their logo at the bottom of your site even if it was a crap site. It was all about getting their name out there in more places than the other browser and building a loyal base. But since the Rift is still in development, and there isn't really another close competitor at the moment, maybe they don't feel compelled to put camera ready art out there for us to use.

    Some kind of official statement regarding the use or non-use of the logo, or info on a certification program, or an idea of what the plan is along those lines would be cool though. Maybe there's a new logo in the works.
  • kernowkernow Posts: 733
    Trinity
    kernow wrote:
    Being "Rift Ready" is one thing, being well implemented is another (good frame rate, menus implemented in a VR friendly way, etc). In the latter, you would need to have your game/simex/demo tested by either Oculus VR, or a trusted third party group that's on the same/similar page (best practices, etc) as Oculus. This is kind of like being allowed by Underwriters Limited to put "UL Listed" on your electrical or electronic product's body and box, or being allowed to put the circled-U mark on your food product (saying it is "kosher") by the Orthodox Union. Not everyone would want to take that extra step, but if you did, it would improve the confidence that the "Rift Ready" label you are already using is actually worthy of that claim (it's like having someone else who is more trusted than you vouch for your claim that it is, in fact, Rift Ready).

    For example:

    Google Launches ‘Works With Google Cardboard’ Certification for VR Smartphone Adapters
    Road to VR, by Ben Lang, 2014-04-16
    http://www.roadtovr.com/works-with-goog ... martphone/

    If Google can do it, I'm sure Oculus can, too.
  • ThreeDeeVisionThreeDeeVision Posts: 2,087
    Wintermute
    Just make it have various levels of compatibility like the NVidia 3DVision.

    -Rift Ready - fully supported
    -Works great
    -Works ok
    -Works but has issues
    -Doesn't work
    i7 5960X @ 3.8 GHz | Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 PC2800 | GTX Titan X Pascal | Win 10 64 bit | Asus ROG PG348Q | EVGA X99 Classified
  • VizionVRVizionVR Posts: 3,022
    Wintermute
    "Fully supported" and "works great" are too similar.
    So is "works ok" and "works, but has issues"
    and there's no reason to even include the logo on a product that it doesn't work with.

    So this leaves us with:
    Full support for (DK1, DK2, CV, etc.)
    and/or
    Works, but possible issues with (DK1, DK2, CV, etc.)
    Not a Rift fanboi. Not a Vive fanboi. I'm a VR fanboi. Get it straight.
  • ThreeDeeVisionThreeDeeVision Posts: 2,087
    Wintermute
    VizionVR wrote:
    "Fully supported" and "works great" are too similar.
    So is "works ok" and "works, but has issues"
    and there's no reason to even include the logo on a product that it doesn't work with.

    So this leaves us with:
    Full support for (DK1, DK2, CV, etc.)
    and/or
    Works, but possible issues with (DK1, DK2, CV, etc.)

    There is a difference between a game that was 'made for oculus' and a game that happens to work great.

    I would say only games that were Fully supported should get an official logo, just like the 3DVision games did. Games that happen to work should be listed on the site with the various levels of compatibility.

    It worked awesome for 3DVision, why reinvent the wheel?

    And you don't actually list or have a logo on the ones that don't work of course. I just listed it to illustrate my point.

    There is also a difference between works ok and works with issues. Works ok, to me, says that the game is very playable with a few minor issues. Works with issues, pretty much tells you that you can get the game to come up on the HMD, but there are some glaring issues that could ruin the experience. Another way to characterize this level would be "Poor compatibility".
    i7 5960X @ 3.8 GHz | Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 PC2800 | GTX Titan X Pascal | Win 10 64 bit | Asus ROG PG348Q | EVGA X99 Classified
  • VizionVRVizionVR Posts: 3,022
    Wintermute
    I've never worked with 3DVision and I'm trying to view VR compatibility as a layman might.
    It worked awesome for 3DVision, why reinvent the wheel?

    Because some of those levels seem arbitrarily vague and I have no idea how they might apply to my experience.
    I dunno, maybe just scrap the entire rating system and if it's fully supported then slap a logo on it.
    Not a Rift fanboi. Not a Vive fanboi. I'm a VR fanboi. Get it straight.
  • ThreeDeeVisionThreeDeeVision Posts: 2,087
    Wintermute
    VizionVR wrote:
    I've never worked with 3DVision and I'm trying to view VR compatibility as a layman might.
    It worked awesome for 3DVision, why reinvent the wheel?

    Because some of those levels seem arbitrarily vague and I have no idea how they might apply to my experience.
    I dunno, maybe just scrap the entire rating system and if it's fully supported then slap a logo on it.

    I don't know if you have ever checked out the 3DVision site, but it will show you what I mean: http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-games.html

    They have both Good and Fair, which should probably be merged into just 'Good'. They also have Poor and Not Recommended which should be merged, but I think those other levels would be good classifications to put on the various compatibility levels.

    Oculus Ready - full support (only one with the official logo)
    Excellent - not fully supported but happens to work great
    Good - a couple minor issues but very playable
    Poor - the issues are glaring and detract from the experience, although it kindof works and might be acceptable to the hard core fans of the game.

    As more games become 'compatible', it will be important to distinguish between the various levels of compatibility (just like it was for 3DVision users).
    i7 5960X @ 3.8 GHz | Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 PC2800 | GTX Titan X Pascal | Win 10 64 bit | Asus ROG PG348Q | EVGA X99 Classified
Sign In or Register to comment.