cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

The slow development of hardware makes sense.

inovator
Consultant
If you think about it, gaming systems from the beginning were very ancient and it took many many years for the tech to bring  us the visual quality we have today. There were also many ups and downs in game usage during that time. Vr is going to work the same way. It's going to be a,long ride to the top.
20 REPLIES 20

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
Yes, we agree - slower and stronger is better; than faster and less durable.

If you jump back to the 2014/5 discussion on this and other forums, you will see those that voiced the concern of forcing an arbitrary price on tech to try and create a VR market that works - than in reality allowing the hardware to find a natural level was better. It was stated at the time that the Facebook acquisition would allow this hardware to be priced low but the hardware would be next-gen performance - then we had Ballpark-Gate!

VR was not dead before the Kickstarter - there was still the VisSim market and their investment - look at all the operations that use off the shelf OptiTrack. And remember the Sony investment, along with their violently expensive HMZ. What we can in reality thank the past few years is for forcing down the over priced competition!

And so your not fooled - ViSim is still investing big (in the background) on VR - except they have moved on to XR tech with the latest systems in dev:

djgkw8iac6yz.png


https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

Anonymous
Not applicable
even longer if they continue to base their dev on mobile VR instead of PC driven stuff... but then I'm in the whingy minority 😄

HiThere_
Superstar
If it wasn't for visionaries like Palmer Lucky and the high end
competition from the HTC Vive team, I'm not sure CV1 would have gotten
Touch controllers, or even positional tracking really : More of a
reasonably priced ~300$ DK3+Gamepad without positional tracking, then a
visionary ~800$ priced CV1+Touch.

I chocked on
the price at the time, but today I wouldn't touch a DK3+Gamepad with a
stick, even if they were being handed out for free.

Today
we're more likely heading for a reasonably priced CV1.5 upgrade then a
visionary but pricey CV2 revelation, and that's kind of sad... as sad as
imagining if Oculus VR had never released sensors or Touch controllers
for the CV1, and we were still down to playing front facing gamepad
VR games instead.

I mean the reason mobile VR is able to get inside-out tracking today, with plenty of 6D controller software available at launch, is because CV1 got it's external sensors and Touch controllers 2 years ago : Even mobile VR will suffer tomorrow, from a half baked CV2 today.

With the expensive CV1 the visionary Oculus VR founders put VR in overdrive, but without them it seems Facebook is going to hit the brakes for the second generation of PC VR hardware (which makes sense, for short term thinkers).

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
These seems to be a lot of interest from the "none" VR community towards a CV1.5 approach (if sub $299) - maybe the OVR/FB focus testing has seen a sweet spot?
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

bigmike20vt
Visionary
i totally agree that for facebook going for a cheaper device which is more practical is a winner.  I also agree this may well be good for VR uptake as a whole. (and this is something we must surely all want?)

HOWEVER

it would have been nice if oculus had been able to service both ends of the pc VR market and have something for the high end as well, for those who DO have a high spec pc.  Yes i know i could go to a pimax like device, however the oculus software infrastructure is just so much more refined than any of the other players imo... not to mention superior erganomics imo.
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

Anonymous
Not applicable


i totally agree that for facebook going for a cheaper device which is more practical is a winner.  I also agree this may well be good for VR uptake as a whole. (and this is something we must surely all want?)

HOWEVER

it would have been nice if oculus had been able to service both ends of the pc VR market and have something for the high end as well, for those who DO have a high spec pc.  Yes i know i could go to a pimax like device, however the oculus software infrastructure is just so much more refined than any of the other players imo... not to mention superior erganomics imo.

This x10 !

Anonymous
Not applicable
As with any choice - an argument on either end will seem sound depending on the customer you are looking for and what the customer is looking for. Not all customers want to buy something cheap and not all customers want to buy something that is going to be something they might use on the side here and there.

Then there is the whole - if you are going to release a new product - it has to be better than the current and price a bit higher - or - come with less - but price lower. CV1 and Quest for example have it backwards with the Quest coming in at around the same price with new features.

With that said - I think the CV1 does need a face lift over time though. A version 1.5 isn't a bad thing. It helps curve the wait time between jumps and over all offers the same improvements that the quicker releases are getting. Usually this can come in as lower cost as well along with a redesign of how something works as well. The other "problem" is that fact that CV1 came out before the other two - with the other two showing off higher end stuff than the "high end" vr doesn't anymore. This confuses people into think that there isn't a high end unit anymore. 


kevinw729
Honored Visionary

dburne said:



i totally agree that for facebook going for a cheaper device which is more practical is a winner.  I also agree this may well be good for VR uptake as a whole. (and this is something we must surely all want?)

HOWEVER

it would have been nice if oculus had been able to service both ends of the pc VR market and have something for the high end as well, for those who DO have a high spec pc.  Yes i know i could go to a pimax like device, however the oculus software infrastructure is just so much more refined than any of the other players imo... not to mention superior erganomics imo.

This x10 !



Well said gentlemen - could not agree more on this observation.

When you understand where all of that $3b has been invested in, you can kinda see that infrastructure came first!

I think with the revelation on the percentage of actual room-scale users in the OVR universe, this may be a power play to defend a move away from Constellation, and towards a Quest range of headsets.

For me - I have to focus on high-end, and can not play semantics with the definition - but the consumer scene may be emboldened with a cost effective solution?
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

inovator
Consultant
It's not a power play. Room scale works for a very small percentage of people.