It doesn't really mention that Palmer Luckey was working with Mark Bolas' VR group at USC [1] at the time of the Kickstarter. The Rift isn't the product of a lone 18-year-old VR autodidact.<p>I'm not 100% certain regarding the timeline, but it's starting to seem odd how <i>every</i> article about Oculus seems to marginalize everyone but Palmer and Carmack.<p>[1] <a href="http://interactive.usc.edu/2012/06/12/mxr-lab-members-and-alum-get-play-at-e3/" rel="nofollow">http://interactive.usc.edu/2012/06/12/mxr-lab-members-and-al...</a>
Did Valve really contribute the most important part to Oculus that is the no-nausea experience? If so, on what terms did they share the technology with Oculus? I'm wondering if Valve is the winner in the shadows or the biggest loser.
<i>Sidenote:</i> wired.com articles have a truly annoying UX error. The slider/gallery goes full screen when the user presses 'F', which hides the article.<p>Not very helpful when you want to find something written in the article by Ctrl+F!
Rubin helpfully fills in a lot of blank spaces in what we already knew about this. The one nagging doubt that still lingers sits somewhere between what is doable, versus what is done. The Kinect, for all it's technological triumphs and impressive market performance, still leaves us waiting for whatever it was that made it seem like it was going to change everything. While few who have ever had the Oculus experience have any doubt that it could change everything, we mustn't forget that we are also all still waiting for the first concrete confirmation that this expectation will be met.