The first virtual reality sports game just hit Steam with the release of Motorsport Revolution, a physics-based PC racing game compatible with the Oculus Rift DK2 headset.   It is the first sports VR game added to the Steam library. And based on the VR buzz at the Consumer Electronics Show, this is just the beginning.

The single-player game features multiple 3D tracks to burn, such as California Speedway, Brazil Raceway and Big Country Criterion, as well as over 20 different cars to choose from as one races through five sports classes, starting with economy and ending with the ultimate formula class.

Neal Nellans, CEO of Ghost Machine, the game’s developer, said the game is more about action than a simulated racing experience.

“We wanted to create an adrenaline-filled action scenario,” Nellans told me. “The AI is very aggressive and it (the game) gives very fantastic crash scenarios.”

Nellans said that a racing genre lended itself nicely to VR because first-person, 3D racing games already existed. This made the transition to VR easy simply by adding a 3D camera.

When asked about issues of nausea, a common challenge within VR experiences, Nellans said that cockpit-type games – games in which action moves around a stationary first person or object — reduce those issues.

Waiting for EA Sports to launch a John Madden VR title? Don’t hold your breath. Nellans thinks the big developers will take a wait-and-see attitude with the tech.

Ghost Machine, a virtual reality studio based in Austin, is also developing Extreme Golf and expects to launch in December. This is not your grandpa’s golf. Features include a timer for each hole which affects scoring, along with the ability to smack your opponent with a club and knock them down to gain an edge and improve your score. Nellans said the game will include a multiplayer element.

The company has six VR games currently in development.

Motorsports Revolution is currently on sale for $12.74 (regularly $14.99) while the Oculus Rift DK2 headset costs $350.

Images via Ghost Studio

A wrist band there, a smartwatch here, maybe a sensor in your shoe. Connected health devices have an evolving — and growing —  place in our world, and as unique as they are, they tend to measure the same things. Heart rate, distances, sleep and such things are all incredibly helpful, however with the Skulpt Aim device, that is all left behind. Aim is a device that measures muscle quality (MQ) in specific muscle groups, up to 24, and by measuring biceps, triceps, abs and quads it gives a total body fat percentage as well as MQ score.

To quantify the muscle gains, Skulpt Aim utilizes 12 sensors and a technology called Electrical Impedance Myography (EIM), developed by Seth Rutkove, MD, Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School. EIM applies a small current of electricity through the muscle to accurately quantify muscle and fat, as each reacts differently when a current is sent through it.

The MQ is measured on an index, the higher the score, the better the muscle quality. With each measurement you can track your fat percentage going down while the MQ goes up, ideal for focusing on specific areas where you think you’re lacking.

With Skulpt, quantifying your training is far beyond simply looking in the mirror or even stepping on a bio-impedance scale. Each measurement with the Aim takes less than one second and the results are displayed on the device itself, no need to pair it with a wireless device for immediate feedback. It is currently compatible with iOS devices (iPhone 5 and later) and will be available for Android (4.3 and later) soon in order to keep a running total of measurements.

Skulpt’s website boasts comparable muscle measurements to hydrostatic weighing, the most accurate and expensive method. The Aim device also claims to be three times more accurate than caliper based measurements. It is available for pre-order at $199 USD and is also available for varying prices in Canada, U.K. and Australia. With a battery that lasts two months a single charge and is splash proof, the Skulpt Aim appears to be a must-have device for any serious trainer, regardless of  the sport. Skulpt’s intro video can be found below and a number of how-to measure videos are available on their website.

Shares of GoPro sank 12 percent Tuesday following news that the US Patent and Trademark Office granted Apple a patent for a remote-controlled, mountable camera, Bloomberg reported. The stock closed Tuesday at $49.87, and while it rebounded slightly Wednesday ($52.34 at closing), it wasn’t enough to quell investor concerns that GoPro could face its stiffest competition yet.

“Investors are concerned that the patent will let Apple, the world’s largest company by market valuation, make products that are similar to what GoPro offers,” said Charlie Anderson, an investment bank and brokerage analyst at Dougherty & Co., to Bloomberg’s Peter Burrows.

Patently Apple monitors Apple’s patent filings and acknowledges that many patents don’t amount to an actual product on the market. However, they found an interesting nugget that makes this seem Apple has a real investment in entering the sports camera market.

What’s interesting here is that Apple’s invention that was filed in 2012 appears to now incorporate intellectual property from Kodak that they acquired back in November 2013. In one implementation, Apple’s invention could directly move into GoPro’s territory as the patent specifically mentions the weaknesses of the GoPro devices.

If Apple acquired a specific Kodak patent to bolster their granted invention, it would appear to be one Apple is taking very seriously. Why else purchase a patent if you’re going to just shelf the idea[?] Exactly which part of the technology Apple is interested in […] isn’t known at this time.

And really, this patent may not be for sports cameras. Maybe it’s related to the iWatch. Or some other Apple product we have no idea about.

Alex Gauna, an analyst for JMP Securities, isn’t concerned by the patent.

“It does not seem to me that launching an action camera accessory is the most logical product extension for Apple to pursue right now,” Gauna told Reuters.

However, details within the patent, such as the following, lend to the idea that Apple has the power to put a dent in the sports camera market if it wants to. And that’s enough to spook investors.

In some embodiments, the microphone is capable of recording sounds in air and also in an underwater environment when the digital camera is used to record underwater images. In other embodiments, the digital camera includes both a conventional air microphone as well as an underwater microphone (hydrophone) capable of recording underwater sounds.

Apple notes in the patent that the camera could be secured to an object, like handle bars, a helmet or a surfboard. Additionally, the system lets users control the camera remotely, which GoPro offers through an app.

Let’s not kid ourselves, GoPro is a beast. Anderson said that the company earned $1 billion in revenue last year. Along with the lion’s share of the sports camera market, GoPro has the buzz and brand name awareness that most companies envy.

But this is Apple we’re talking about. Describing the company’s faithful as a powerful consumer base is like saying Michael Jordan was pretty good at basketball. And with its history of designing stylish products, sports camera shoppers could very well be swayed by a brand name that squashes GoPro and buy a more creative, cooler-looking camera.

(Image via Andreas Kambanis)

As the reach of streaming services continues to grow ever further, the competition to offer streaming options increases — from Amazon-owned Twitch.TV to MLG.TV, YouTube, or even Azubu.TV. Now, Dailymotion is throwing its hat into the ring. With the announcement of Dailymotion Games, the new platform aims to tap into the massive professional and casual stream market.

According to their press release, gaming content already accounts for 180 million video views per month on Dailymotion as well as 11 million unique viewers monthly. The latest addition to the esports streaming scene offers a similar function to existing services including a chat box, user-controlled commercial breaks and an app for both iOS and Android is already available. The official website still says the product is in Beta, however hundreds of channels are already live and ready to be watched.

For doubters questioning if someone can make a living merely streaming a game, Winter, a teamless player who primarily streams StarCraft II, recently answered this on Reddit. He cites a $60,000 income in 2014 — between ad revenue from his stream plus donations — before taxes are accounted for. Given that he does not compete at the professional level and has won a mere $600 in prize money from competitive tournaments in his career, his stream generates more than a livable wage.

Considering the fact StarCraft II is, at best, the fifth most watched game behind League of Legends, Dota 2, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Hearthstone, clearly streaming services and those who use it will be constantly searching for the best platform. It remains to be seen if Dailymotion can knock Twitch off of their pedestal as the leader of streaming services, though more competition can only be a good thing.

Perhaps this is the robot device that will bring future generations to their knees in anguish and empathy for our generation, but alas it exists:

Yes, BeachBot is a little robot turtle that draws stuff in the sand. Using its little cold metal fingers, it tirelessly scrapes designs into a Swiss beach near you. Why does this matter? What does this project merit that it should pull, by my count, eight engineers away from the matters of world hunger and missing sock matches? Well here’s an obvious item to me: beach sports.
Read the rest of this entry »

Even before covering CES, it was clear that we as a technology-obsessed culture was headed towards a wearable boon. Between proprietary and universal smartwatches to fitness bands and sleep trackers, the new field of connected devices is a field primed for growth. Like any product, these beginning stages offer a wide variety of options without any clear winner sitting above the competition. Before unloading hundreds of dollars on a piece of technology, why not try it out first? At Lumoid, trying before buying is their sole function.

Though Lumoid has offered photography and video trials before, they have recently expanded their scope to include wearables of all kinds. The company will allow you to try any five connected devices for a week. If you happen to find the perfect wearable you’re able to purchase it at retail price, or failing that, it is just $20 to send all five back. The return label is included with the devices and the $20 is automatically taken off of your credit card upon shipping the unwanted wearables back. Sporting choices such as Samsung’s Gear Fit, the Pebble smartwatch and the Fitbit Charge as well as many others for a total of 36 different options, Lumoid is hitting the ground running with this ambitious product trial.

A recent study conducted by Global Web Index from Q3 2014 showed that while 80% of the 170,000 adults use a smartphone, only a combined 16% utilize some sort of smartwatch (9%) or wristband (7%).

If market saturation is the issue — and that is a worthy argument despite the still new wearable field — then perhaps Lumoid will allow users to shed some light on the different products through the week long trials.

David Olson took home $303,909 for winning the 2014 World Series of Poker limit hold’em championship, a feat that simply wouldn’t have happened if a computer program named Cepheus had a say in the matter when it came down to heads-up play.

Researchers from the University of Alberta published a study in Science last Friday claiming to have created a computer program that is essentially unbeatable in heads-up limit hold’em.

Named after the King of Aetheiopia in Greek mythology who left Andromeda chained to a rock to be devoured, Cepheus was trained for 70 days playing matches against itself while considering 6 billion hands per second.

The program started out playing randomly and learned from every loss it suffered, called a “regret value.” The computer would store that regret value for subsequent hands and as matches added up the computer updated its strategy until it approached perfection.

Michael Bowling, the co-author of the study, said, “We’re not quite perfect, but we’re so close that even after a lifetime of playing against it, you wouldn’t know it wasn’t perfect.”

While epic matches in games like checkers and chess have been waged in the past between computers and humans, they differ from poker because it is a game with imperfect information—you only know your own hand and the cards on the table. When IBM’s Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov in a chess rematch in 1997, the programmers had the advantage of having all of the game’s information displayed on the board.

In the process of programming Cepheus, Bowling and his colleagues were able to confirm some commonly held best practices for heads-up play. For example, the dealer in any given hand has an advantage of .088 big blinds per hand. They also confirmed it’s prudent to raise rather than call in the first move in the vast majority of hands.

Poker geeks can try their hand against Cepheus online. Freelance poker writer Christopher Hall did, and he claims to have come out slightly ahead against the program after 400 hands. While that’s a nice feat for Hall, a creation like Cepheus calls for an epic game against a pro like Phil Hellmuth to show that these researchers have truly solved the game.

(Header image via flickr)

CES has come and gone, and I’m looking over my pages and pages of notes trying to figure out how I took it all in. There was a lot of ground to cover, and I’m not embarrassed to say that we didn’t see everything. It was a question of numbers really, and there were simply too many booths spread over too much real estate to catch it all. While we couldn’t see all of the prototype TVs or every piece of home automation tech that’s been put out there, we worked hard to focus in on our “beat,” what we cover at this site. And CES has shown me two distinct things about the sports tech world — everybody is getting into it, and very few have any idea what they’re doing.

The sports tech/wearable tech exhibitors at CES took up much of the second floor of the Sands Expo. Big hitters like FitBit were there showing off their latest tracking wrist wear, but so were many other smaller companies trying desperately to show their new or conceptual product to anyone who would listen. We went around talking to people and looking at literature, and to be honest, after a while everything just sort of blended together into some sort of silicon pastiche. Seemingly every new fitness product did the same six or seven things — tracked heart rate, steps taken, distance travelled, calories burned, etc. They were all slight variations of each other.

In this rapidly-expanding arena of fitness tracking, nobody is doing anything truly new. Much of the industry seems stuck in neutral. They are all just doing a lot of the same. Sure, some companies had better-looking apps or more stylish hardware, but these minor differences are the only ways manufacturers can set themselves apart. Until someone can break through that next technological barrier — and I’m not sure what that is yet — this trend is just going to continue.

I’m not saying that this type of product is a fad because I think devices like these will be around for some time. But the market is clearly oversaturated. Far too many companies are jumping into this pool either looking to gain a presence for their already-established brand in this new space, or to try and be the next big Kickstarter phenom. Did you know that there is a fitness tracker for dogs? Because there is a fitness tracker for dogs. Many of the booths we passed reeked of desperation.

The products that jumped out at us were those that were hyper-focused on something, and usually something the other guys didn’t do. I think VERT is a good example. Is everyone going to want a device to track their jumping? Of course not. But VERT is attempting to find their niche rather than being one of a thousand faces in a crowd. They have a specific market, a market they are growing, and focusing their time and resources on that is their best chance at success.

This is not to say that everything we encountered at CES was dreck. We found many interesting products on the showroom floor. Some we have already profiled here, others will be featured in the near future. There is great innovation out there to be found, you just have to separate a little wheat from a little chaff.

Over my four days at CES I logged over 80,000 steps, cultivated one grape-sized blister on my foot, had to recharge my phone about 100 times, and ended up learning a lot about where to world of sports technology is, but less about where it’s going. There were some clear cut trends in other markets — virtual reality, 4K, home/life automation, and even consumer drones were the talk of the conference. But the sports/fitness world didn’t have that. There was no next big thing. And that’s OK. It’s a young world that needs some time to grow. But until that thing is found I fear many companies will still be pushing all their chips into the rapidly-growing pot of wearable tech and smart watches. I’m just not sure who will have the winning hand.

If you’re wondering what a reporter might bring to a show like this, below is a picture I snapped quick of what I brought to the show every day in my bag.

The gear includes but is not limited to:

• A MacBook Air donning a custom NotGraphs (RIP) skin
• An iPad Air with stylus (I used Penultimate for all my note taking)
• A mirror-less camera on loan from my boss, David Appelman
• A Grid-It organizer packed with essentials such as
  • USB wall chargers and cables
  • Two USB battery packs
  • Bluetooth mouse
  • Lightning to USB adapter for iPad
  • Earbuds w/ Bluetooth adapter
  • Pens

I have no doubt that the overall feel of this showroom section will be much different at CES 2016. A year is a long time for things to shake out in such a new market. Hopefully more companies will be looking to innovate rather than imitate. Some are already trying to do so, and it’s leading to some really interesting products. I hope that trend continues in 2015, and the sports tech section of CES 2016 will be stage for some big-time changes in this space.

(Header image via Michael Koukoullis)

Is the NFL ready for its first defensive Most Valuable Player since Lawrence Taylor in 1986? Pro Football Focus is.

The web site, which provides individual player analytics, recently named Houston Texans defensive end J.J. Watt as its player of the year. Watt’s stiffest competition for the MVP award, Aaron Rodgers of Green Bay, finished second. However, PFF has named its honor the Dwight Stephenson award after the Miami Dolphins offensive lineman. The best players can play any position, PFF says, as opposed to MVPs mainly awarded to quarterbacks or running backs.

PFF watches game tape and grades each player on their ability to execute their roles on each individual play. The PFF staff blends statistics and performance-based scouting (results rather than technique) in their approach. In defining its grading process, PFF states that stats can lie, and there’s context of a statistic that they value.

“If the quarterback throws an accurate first down conversion that is dropped, the quarterback receives the same credit as he would have with a catch,” writes PFF.

Watt finished 2014 with 20.5 sacks, four forced fumbles, one interception, 59 solo tackles, a safety, two touchdowns and three receiving touchdowns.

“Watt is so far out on his own in terms of play that he breaks every graph we create to try and illustrate it, extending axes and generally sitting off on a data point all to himself,” writes Sam Monson, a PFF analyst. “He is completely redefining what we thought a defensive player was capable of, and is only getting better.”

Following a tedious process which involves three different analysts viewing game broadcast and All-22 footage, PFF awards each player a grade between +2.0 and -2.0 in half increments with zero given for an average play. Zero is the most often awarded value with other values given to plays that are an exception – both good and bad. Watt racked up a +107.5 grade. The next highest 3-4 defensive end was Sheldon Richardson of the New York Jets with a +39.9 grade.

Here is an example:

The varying degrees of positive and negative grades add a little bit more context than a simple plus and minus systems. An offensive lineman might surrender a sack on a given play, but how quickly was he beaten? Allowing a defender to slip past and get into the quarterback’s face in 1.9 seconds is obviously much worse than allowing that same sack in 2.7 seconds, so while both plays are negatives, they certainly won’t carry the same exact grade.

Using that same example, if the pressure is surrendered in 1.9 seconds and the quarterback sidesteps the sack, it’s certainly not indicative of the offensive lineman’s pass-blocking acumen, so there’s no reason to change his grade because he “only” surrendered a pressure and not a sack. The goal of the grading is to isolate individual performance as much as possible, fully realizing that there is always a certain level of dependency on teammates in football.

While PFF supports Watt, history does not. The MVP has not hailed from a non-playoff team since 1973. The Texans didn’t make the playoffs, though they did finish 9-7.

The MVP will be awarded January 31.

(Image via Mike)

The crowd surrounding the SmartMat booth at CES was able to see first hand the connected yoga mat that has gained so much attention on Indiegogo by raising nearly 300% of the desired goal. Now in production, SmartMat had live demonstrations of just what the mat is capable of doing including recognizing 62 different poses, showing proper form, and providing audio and visual feedback from a digital instructor.

Ready to be shipped out in the second quarter of the year, the connected mat is available for pre-order right now for $297.00. With apps available in both iOS and Android, SmartMat has digital classes plus unlockable badges as your progress through various levels of difficulty. Before hitting the ground running you’ll need to calibrate the mat in order to accurately detect alignment and provide the best tips to improve your posture.

There are three modes in which SmartMat can critique your poses: In-home, In-class and Zen. In-home is aimed at the private user, giving real time feedback step-by-step and scores directly on your device. In-class is for session based or group classes as it recognizes poses, but you can tweak the setting for audio or video feedback only in order to not disturb others. The zen mode is designed for when you don’t have your phone or tablet with you. Zen mode saves your information locally in order to sync, review and analyze it later at the expense of no real time help.

SmartMat’s battery lasts up to six hours and connects via bluetooth. No need to be connected to wi-fi,thus allowing freedom to continue practicing yoga in the park, gym or while on a business trip. It measures 26″ x 71″ and is 6mm and can be rolled up just like a traditional yoga mat. For heat yoga enthusiasts the official rating on SmartMat is 110F, though the site also urges caution for your smartphone or tablet at that temperature.

By bringing the yoga class to your apartment or home, or even being able to travel with a virtual instructor, SmartMat is stretching the scope of yoga while it helps users stretch their bodies. Given the prices of classes — let alone private one-on-one sessions — it is clear to see why SmartMat has gained so much traction in the yoga community. The near $300 one-time cost for immediate feedback is a great price when compared to your local instructor’s rates. The video below is from SmartMat’s YouTube channel and is more of a preview trailer than demonstration, however given what was shown at CES, it is an accurate depiction of the finished product.