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

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Brace yourselves: Official Rift-S reveal is coming

1272830323336

Comments

  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    Zenbane said:
    It appears as if there's a generation of consumers that seem allergic to the concept of "figuring things out." Again, not direct at you, just an overall sentiment.
    Yea I wasn't referring to myself, While I did find it annoying during the initial setup as I mentioned, I figured it out and started playing. My cabling was everywhere when I first started..why? because I wanted to jump in and start playing. I bought some extensions and they didn't work. It was a mess for a good month before I got the cabling I needed and I tucked it all away and made ti look nice. 

    Facebook wants a Mass Market item. I'm just looking at it from the viewpoint of the average user. Neither of us fit in that category. There's a reason consoles do so well, the average person just wants things to work with no hassle. To be frank, they're lazy and spoiled lol. I see this constantly with people in real life. One example, Guy has a Monster PC, ultrawide monitor and a gtx 1080 TI for a year now... spends all his time playing Xbox one X lol. Why? because he gets tired of configuring games... Yeaaa

  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,619 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    Yeah I figured you were speaking to the mindset of the masses since that is the target market to hit that "1 billion units sold." And we've all bought in to the VR Marketing Machine that says... after 1 billion, we all get magical fairy dust VR Titles and Hardware Accessories!

    In the end though, I feel that with Oculus having 3 product lines between GO, Quest, and Rift, that we can dedicate two of them to the global non-enthusiast consumer; but I would personally rather Oculus keep their Flagship Headset aimed at true high-end enthusiasts.

    And to that end... things line managing cables and USB Ports is a relative non-factor.
    :)
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,085 Valuable Player
    The thing which confuses me isnits not even a hardware problem. Nate himself said RiftS touch is capable of supporting constellation it's just a matter of allowing it in the software.
    I don't get why this is even a decision. Just do it FGS ..... Most users I am convinced would be ok with 2 sensors atn180degress so we still free up a usb so issues are vastly cut down.

    The users who are currently happy with 2 sensors will no doubt be happy with rift s without any sensors.
     Current CV1 users who use 3 or 4 sensors may prefer rift S with a couple of external sensors. Everyone wins
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    Zenbane said:
    Yeah I figured you were speaking to the mindset of the masses since that is the target market to hit that "1 billion units sold." And we've all bought in to the VR Marketing Machine that says... after 1 billion, we all get magical fairy dust VR Titles and Hardware Accessories!

    In the end though, I feel that with Oculus having 3 product lines between GO, Quest, and Rift, that we can dedicate two of them to the global non-enthusiast consumer; but I would personally rather Oculus keep their Flagship Headset aimed at true high-end enthusiasts.

    And to that end... things line managing cables and USB Ports is a relative non-factor.
    :)
    Well personally, I haven't bought into it. I wish the Rift-S was the CV2 Enthusiast headset. I have a significant investment in the oculus home store and it's kind of disappointing that I only have a budget headset to choose from now when the Rift originally rolled out as a premium product. 
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,850 Valuable Player
    pyroth309 said:
    Zenbane said:
    Yeah I figured you were speaking to the mindset of the masses since that is the target market to hit that "1 billion units sold." And we've all bought in to the VR Marketing Machine that says... after 1 billion, we all get magical fairy dust VR Titles and Hardware Accessories!

    In the end though, I feel that with Oculus having 3 product lines between GO, Quest, and Rift, that we can dedicate two of them to the global non-enthusiast consumer; but I would personally rather Oculus keep their Flagship Headset aimed at true high-end enthusiasts.

    And to that end... things line managing cables and USB Ports is a relative non-factor.
    :)
    Well personally, I haven't bought into it. I wish the Rift-S was the CV2 Enthusiast headset. I have a significant investment in the oculus home store and it's kind of disappointing that I only have a budget headset to choose from now when the Rift originally rolled out as a premium product. 
    Yeah Oculus for whatever reason has left the premium PC-VR market, at least for now best one can tell. 
    Apparently they are all about overall volume now. Will be interesting to see going forward how the Rift S fairs in all of this.
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case| Rift S | Quest |
  • Hiro_Protag0nistHiro_Protag0nist Posts: 4,823 Valuable Player
    dburne said:
    pyroth309 said:
    Zenbane said:
    Yeah I figured you were speaking to the mindset of the masses since that is the target market to hit that "1 billion units sold." And we've all bought in to the VR Marketing Machine that says... after 1 billion, we all get magical fairy dust VR Titles and Hardware Accessories!

    In the end though, I feel that with Oculus having 3 product lines between GO, Quest, and Rift, that we can dedicate two of them to the global non-enthusiast consumer; but I would personally rather Oculus keep their Flagship Headset aimed at true high-end enthusiasts.

    And to that end... things line managing cables and USB Ports is a relative non-factor.
    :)
    Well personally, I haven't bought into it. I wish the Rift-S was the CV2 Enthusiast headset. I have a significant investment in the oculus home store and it's kind of disappointing that I only have a budget headset to choose from now when the Rift originally rolled out as a premium product. 
    Yeah Oculus for whatever reason has left the premium PC-VR market, at least for now best one can tell. 
    Apparently they are all about overall volume now. Will be interesting to see going forward how the Rift S fairs in all of this.

    I'd say the Rift is the best consumer HMD available right now.

    They might be leaving but they certainly haven't left.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,549 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    dburne said:
    pyroth309 said:
    Zenbane said:
    Yeah I figured you were speaking to the mindset of the masses since that is the target market to hit that "1 billion units sold." And we've all bought in to the VR Marketing Machine that says... after 1 billion, we all get magical fairy dust VR Titles and Hardware Accessories!

    In the end though, I feel that with Oculus having 3 product lines between GO, Quest, and Rift, that we can dedicate two of them to the global non-enthusiast consumer; but I would personally rather Oculus keep their Flagship Headset aimed at true high-end enthusiasts.

    And to that end... things line managing cables and USB Ports is a relative non-factor.
    :)
    Well personally, I haven't bought into it. I wish the Rift-S was the CV2 Enthusiast headset. I have a significant investment in the oculus home store and it's kind of disappointing that I only have a budget headset to choose from now when the Rift originally rolled out as a premium product. 
    Yeah Oculus for whatever reason has left the premium PC-VR market, at least for now best one can tell. 
    Apparently they are all about overall volume now. Will be interesting to see going forward how the Rift S fairs in all of this.

    I'd say the Rift is the best consumer HMD available right now.

    They might be leaving but they certainly haven't left.
    Best in what ways? Price? Specs? What about the limitations? (just asking, not a trick question)
  • Hiro_Protag0nistHiro_Protag0nist Posts: 4,823 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    dburne said:
    pyroth309 said:
    Zenbane said:
    Yeah I figured you were speaking to the mindset of the masses since that is the target market to hit that "1 billion units sold." And we've all bought in to the VR Marketing Machine that says... after 1 billion, we all get magical fairy dust VR Titles and Hardware Accessories!

    In the end though, I feel that with Oculus having 3 product lines between GO, Quest, and Rift, that we can dedicate two of them to the global non-enthusiast consumer; but I would personally rather Oculus keep their Flagship Headset aimed at true high-end enthusiasts.

    And to that end... things line managing cables and USB Ports is a relative non-factor.
    :)
    Well personally, I haven't bought into it. I wish the Rift-S was the CV2 Enthusiast headset. I have a significant investment in the oculus home store and it's kind of disappointing that I only have a budget headset to choose from now when the Rift originally rolled out as a premium product. 
    Yeah Oculus for whatever reason has left the premium PC-VR market, at least for now best one can tell. 
    Apparently they are all about overall volume now. Will be interesting to see going forward how the Rift S fairs in all of this.

    I'd say the Rift is the best consumer HMD available right now.

    They might be leaving but they certainly haven't left.
    Best in what ways? Price? Specs? What about the limitations? (just asking, not a trick question)

    Price, comfort, quality and the ecosystem (Home/apps/games).

    I work with VR and i've tried a lot of headsets - i use them every day.  I've made it clear that the Vive Pro is the comfiest, but the Vives must be excluded because of their controllers.  Others with amazing specs - the Varjo - not for consumers for obvious reasons.

    And of course, it is only my opinion and i do respect others'.
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,923 Valuable Player
    edited March 26

    The best VR solution is not just about the HMD and controllers, but also about the available software. Right now I still think Oculus is the best option when games, apps, performance and image quality (using high levels of SS) are considered. Besides Skyrim, Doom VFR and Polybius, there're no Steam-exclusive games pulling me toward that platform (no, I didn't forget to mention FallOut 4, I'll get back to that game when I get my RTX 3180 ;-)

    The opportunity to experience Asgard's Wrath, Stormland and Lone Echo 2 "the way they're meant to be played" has great importance to me.

    Regarding performance, maybe I should buy Moss or Windlands 2 on Steam and measure how they're performing compared to the Rift versions... Has anyone done such benchmarks? Personally I'm not sure the SteamVR versions perform worse - it's just more annoying first having to start up SteamVR...

    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,813 Valuable Player
    dburne said:
    ....
    Yeah Oculus for whatever reason has left the premium PC-VR market, at least for now best one can tell. 
    Apparently they are all about overall volume now. Will be interesting to see going forward how the Rift S fairs in all of this.

    It would seem there are two Oculus VR's (perceived from the outside) - the mobile / standalone operation, centred round the Oculus TX offices and has focused on the Samsung GearVR partnership, the move to Go and the development of Quest - this operation also seems to have encapsulated the aspirations of a "mainstream" VR roll out (proffered by Facebook founder). The other operation was focused on PC and the CV1, with the drive for R&D in that direction, an example being the Half Dome concept - (there are also respective software development components support both efforts). For a multitude of reasons the PC side has seen momentous departures and restructuring finally partnering with Lenovo to create a paired down (populous) version of their previous CV1 PC solution. I agree @dburne - the reaction and sales to the Rift-S will be a "make or break" for this side of their business will define what Oculus VR becomes, far more than many think.
     
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "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
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,619 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    It would seem there are two Oculus VR's (perceived from the outside) - the mobile / standalone operation, centred round the Oculus TX offices and has focused on the Samsung GearVR partnership, the move to Go and the development of Quest - this operation also seems to have encapsulated the aspirations of a "mainstream" VR roll out (proffered by Facebook founder).

    When I see the term "it would seem" and "also seems to have", I see speculation -
    But that's okay, because speculation is good. ;)

    dburne said:
    Yeah Oculus for whatever reason has left the premium PC-VR market, at least for now best one can tell. 
    Apparently they are all about overall volume now. Will be interesting to see going forward how the Rift S fairs in all of this.

    I think it is more of a re-branding, with a return on the horizon. We shall see!

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 2,197 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    The thing which confuses me isnits not even a hardware problem. Nate himself said RiftS touch is capable of supporting constellation it's just a matter of allowing it in the software.
    I don't get why this is even a decision. Just do it FGS ..... Most users I am convinced would be ok with 2 sensors atn180degress so we still free up a usb so issues are vastly cut down.

    The users who are currently happy with 2 sensors will no doubt be happy with rift s without any sensors.
     Current CV1 users who use 3 or 4 sensors may prefer rift S with a couple of external sensors. Everyone wins
    I think it is for a very simple reason:-

    They have announced that they have a new approach to tracking, sensor free.

    If they then say at the same time, existing users can use their sensors for better tracking, they are sending a confusing message to new users that the tracking is not good enough alone. Something they want to avoid as the new users start to think they have to purchase sensors to get the best out of it.

    Much better to slip in later that you can also use sensor tracking as well at a less prestigious moment.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,619 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    The thing which confuses me isnits not even a hardware problem. Nate himself said RiftS touch is capable of supporting constellation it's just a matter of allowing it in the software.
    I don't get why this is even a decision. Just do it FGS ..... Most users I am convinced would be ok with 2 sensors atn180degress so we still free up a usb so issues are vastly cut down.

    The users who are currently happy with 2 sensors will no doubt be happy with rift s without any sensors.
     Current CV1 users who use 3 or 4 sensors may prefer rift S with a couple of external sensors. Everyone wins
    I think it is for a very simple reason:-

    They have announced that they have a new approach to tracking, sensor free.

    If they then say at the same time, existing users can use their sensors for better tracking, they are sending a confusing message that the tracking is not good enough alone. Something they want to avoid.

    Much better to slip in later that you can also use sensor tracking as well at a less prestigious moment.

    I have to disagree that the message would be "confusing," because the external sensors are an official Oculus product. I mean... Microsoft can sell you a phone, desktop, laptop, keyboard, and mouse. No one gets confused about the messaging from Microsoft there, right?

    There can be some very simple marketing verbiage that would showcase the benefit of using 1 or more extra sensors to compliment the Rift-S. One such marketing approach could simply entail enticing people to "make sure every angle is covered for your VR League Tournaments!"

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 2,197 Valuable Player
    Yes not confusing for you or me, but we are talking about new people buying headsets and new to VR.

    I am not saying they wont add it but I understand the sense of not muddying the waters on the first announcement.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,619 Valuable Player
    Yes not confusing for you or me, but we are talking about new people buying headsets and new to VR.

    I am not saying they wont add it but I understand the sense of not muddying the waters on the first announcement.

    Yeah I agree, and yep... all rhetoric coming out of GDC is basically the same: But what about the masses?!
    :p
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • SkScotcheggSkScotchegg Posts: 1,269
    Wintermute
    I never had any issues setting up my Rift, I thought it was really easy. And I didn't have to buy an expansion card for USB's as my motherboard has 8 USB slots on the back and then 2 USB slots on front of the case.  I never had any issues with my Rift whatsoever. I remember when we first got our Rift's and people complained of dead pixels or green or red tinted screens etc but I never had any of those issues either.

    I just thought the whole design and end product was fantastic when it arrived, it really felt like a premium product to me.

    The only thing I did notice was the God Rays, but they've fixed that now with the Rift S, Oculus GO and Quest with new optics. And to be honest it never really bothered me anyway because when playing games you don't notice god rays. It's only really on menu's and text. The built-in headphones were perfect too.

    Maybe I was lucky but I think the majority of the people that complain about the headphones or tracking etc are definitely in the minority.
    UK: England - Leeds - - RTX 2080 - Rift CV1 & Rift S - Make love, not war - See you in the Oasis!
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    Apart from all of the other very obvious reasons for them to focus on achieving mass adoption before pandering to small numbers of wealthy, high-end tech nerds...

    Maybe they're holding off the CV2 until they've perfected certain features they want to include in it?  Y'know, like foveated rendering and eye-tracking and all that.  These are, after all, the people who refused to launch their motion controls until nearly a year after the Rift came out,  knowing it gave a competitor the chance to undermine their sales,  because they were dead-set on perfecting them first.   It was risky, but I think it paid off for them in the end.

    So sure, they could just slap some bigger, better screens in a CV1 and sell them to their existing high-end customers... or they could release the best high-end VR system in the world, with the most cutting-edge features, a year or so from now.  And capture ALL of the high-end market.

    Maybe in the meantime, they could set up official Oculus Home support for select third-party headsets, like that HP whatever?   I'd be surprised if they actually did,  but it would mean not making their customers choose between having to wait for a high-spec headset or abandoning their Rift libraries..
    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,549 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    CrashFu said:
    Apart from all of the other very obvious reasons for them to focus on achieving mass adoption before pandering to small numbers of wealthy, high-end tech nerds...

    Maybe they're holding off the CV2 until they've perfected certain features they want to include in it?  Y'know, like foveated rendering and eye-tracking and all that.
    1) Yet, the top 1% still holds more power than the other 90% of the world pop. What's your point?
    2) Can't perfect what isn't out there. You need demo hardware and software before anyone can use such a device. That means you NEED to already deploying early revisions on what you want to come out in the future. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any rumors or word on this right now. The only world we have right now is that they discontinue a higher end project. That rumor came out around the same time as someone leaving Oculus and follow by updates of a Rift S.
    3) The HMD cost isn't the entry point into PC VR - its the PC it self. The hardware and software of the PC makes or breaks if a customer can even run VR in the first place.
    4) Another 3 years is a long ass time to wait. The people with money are looking for their next high end right now and they are the ones usually willing to spend more on games than a bunch of people that already had a hard time buying the headset in the first place.
    5) Mass adoption needs a base - PCVR doesn't give it a base or starting point to focus on how well the software should run with in a given price point. PC - is wildly different per user and environment. Even if you have the same hardware - performance can widely swing depending on what that user is using the computer for.
    6) Low end users already have options GO, Quest, CV1 (do to age and cost), and now Rift S. How many more options do low end users need? FREE!? LOL
  • AekeroAekero Posts: 126
    Art3mis
    Mradr said:
    CrashFu said:
    Apart from all of the other very obvious reasons for them to focus on achieving mass adoption before pandering to small numbers of wealthy, high-end tech nerds...

    Maybe they're holding off the CV2 until they've perfected certain features they want to include in it?  Y'know, like foveated rendering and eye-tracking and all that.
    1) Yet, the top 1% still holds more power than the other 90% of the world pop. What's your point?
    2) Can't perfect what isn't out there. You need demo hardware and software before anyone can use such a device. That means you NEED to already deploying early revisions on what you want to come out in the future. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any rumors or word on this right now. The only world we have right now is that they discontinue a higher end project. That rumor came out around the same time as someone leaving Oculus and follow by updates of a Rift S.
    3) The HMD cost isn't the entry point into PC VR - its the PC it self. The hardware and software of the PC makes or breaks if a customer can even run VR in the first place.
    4) Another 3 years is a long ass time to wait. The people with money are looking for their next high end right now and they are the ones usually willing to spend more on games than a bunch of people that already had a hard time buying the headset in the first place.
    5) Mass adoption needs a base - PCVR doesn't give it a base or starting point to focus on how well the software should run with in a given price point. PC - is wildly different per user and environment. Even if you have the same hardware - performance can widely swing depending on what that user is using the computer for.
    6) Low end users already have options GO, Quest, CV1 (do to age and cost), and now Rift S. How many more options do low end users need? FREE!? LOL
    1. I think the idea is just mass adoption
    2. what do you mean? they could easily have prototypes being released internally couldn't they? We didn't see demo revisions or hear about some of the current hmds coming out now. I think the industry is relatively quiet before actual launch because everyone is trying to get an edge, noone wants other hmds to offer what they offer. Hype isn't enough to keep people from buying from the competition at this stage.
    3. I'd say it's both, especially if the hmd is another 1200 on top of everything, and requires a 2k computer instead of a 1k computer to run it. The higher you go the more people you price out.
    4. I agree! and, I'm worried that Uribe left because they were scrapping their high end hmd.
    5. Yeah, kind of pc gaming in a nutshell, still possible to grow that user base though.
    6. Also agree, but I will add that the goal would be to minimize spec requirements while still adding functionality/usability until down the road, middle of the road pcs sold to your average citizen just have that capability

    I get your point, but I'd almost say after thinking about it that pcvr shouldn't be the focus in any way for Oculus (which it might not be) I'm more interested in spreading vr than focusing on an even smaller niche audience.
  • SkScotcheggSkScotchegg Posts: 1,269
    Wintermute
    edited March 26
    CrashFu said:
     These are, after all, the people who refused to launch their motion controls until nearly a year after the Rift came out,  knowing it gave a competitor the chance to undermine their sales,  because they were dead-set on perfecting them first.   It was risky, but I think it paid off for them in the end.

    Yeah VR without hands isn't immersive VR imo. I love my Touch controllers so much and I can't wait to try Touch 2.0 with Quest/Rift-S.The only exception to this rule is obviously for gamer's who only play sims as they use Joystick/Steering wheel. But for most gamer's who want to stand in a room, move about and shoot with their hands in games like Robo Recall etc Touch allows you to have hands in VR which creates presence and immersion.

    So yeah I agree with you, I think it did pay off. And I also think waiting 1 more year for Rift CV2 won't hurt as they have 1 more year to get the technology right. I really think they're trying to perfect eye tracking with fostered rendering in the background at Oculus Labs! Maybe if it's not done in time for next year they will just release a CV2 with increased FOV and resolution, which is perfect for me. And then they might move the new technology to CV3. Either way I'm happy as long as Rift CV2 comes out next year like this rumors have been saying.

    EDIT: Also I used to hope they will release CV2 with 180-200 FOV but now I'm hoping for more modest increase of 140 fov which I reckon I more realistic.
    UK: England - Leeds - - RTX 2080 - Rift CV1 & Rift S - Make love, not war - See you in the Oasis!
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    CrashFu said:
    Apart from all of the other very obvious reasons for them to focus on achieving mass adoption before pandering to small numbers of wealthy, high-end tech nerds...

    Maybe they're holding off the CV2 until they've perfected certain features they want to include in it?  Y'know, like foveated rendering and eye-tracking and all that.
    1) Yet, the top 1% still holds more power than the other 90% of the world pop. What's your point?
    2) Can't perfect what isn't out there. You need demo hardware and software before anyone can use such a device. That means you NEED to already deploying early revisions on what you want to come out in the future. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any rumors or word on this right now. The only world we have right now is that they discontinue a higher end project. That rumor came out around the same time as someone leaving Oculus and follow by updates of a Rift S.
    3) The HMD cost isn't the entry point into PC VR - its the PC it self. The hardware and software of the PC makes or breaks if a customer can even run VR in the first place.
    4) Another 3 years is a long ass time to wait. The people with money are looking for their next high end right now and they are the ones usually willing to spend more on games than a bunch of people that already had a hard time buying the headset in the first place.
    5) Mass adoption needs a base - PCVR doesn't give it a base or starting point to focus on how well the software should run with in a given price point. PC - is wildly different per user and environment. Even if you have the same hardware - performance can widely swing depending on what that user is using the computer for.
    6) Low end users already have options GO, Quest, CV1 (do to age and cost), and now Rift S. How many more options do low end users need? FREE!? LOL
    1.  All that wealth doesn't matter much to the VR industry unless you're willing to pay 10x the price for every piece of software you buy.   One rich kid buying a game for $10 is not a replacement for 10 average-wealth people buying a ten copies for $10 each,  and if the developers can't expect a large enough market, they aren't going to bother making VR software in the first place.

    3.  Typical rich kid. You honestly think most people don't see any difference between spending $400 on an entertainment product and spending $1000+?     And like Aekero said, the higher the VR system specs, the more expensive of a computer you need to run it.  So higher specs mean an exponentially higher overall price.  In the end, we're talking a VR setup for as low as $900 (including computer) for the Rift-S, and a minimum of $3000 for the kind of specs some of you are demanding.  You think that doesn't make a difference to the average tech consumer?   I had to work overtime every week for three years just to afford my current PC and the CV1 at launch,  and I only did it because I'm such a hardcore enthusiast that I HAD to be on the ground floor of modern VR.   If I had to spend that kind of money again, I'd rather put it towards a new car or healthcare or something I actually need.

    4. If the "PC Master Race" was willing to spend  "more on games" then why have PC games been devalued so drastically compared to console games? (I blame Valve's irresponsible business practices, mostly, but I'm sure there's more to it than that alone)  Console gamers are still willing to pay $40-60 for a single game, whereas PC gamers throw a tantrum if developers ask more than $10.  Hell, if wealthy PC gamers were buying soooooo many games, why has Viveport had to push their unlimited-games monthly subscription plan?  Weren't all the Vive Pro and high-end third-party device owners buying enough games?

    Suppose you'll be telling me about "trickle-down economics" next, huh?

    6.  Go exists for a wildly different purpose than the Quest or Rift-S,  and Rift-S has benefits that Quest does not  (full connectivity to PC, non-reliance on a battery, being powered by a CPU and GPU that isn't the size of a graham-cracker..)    And the point of Rift-S is to replace the CV1 as THE Entry-Level PC VR system,  to improve on the quality and ease-of-use of the entry-level experience,  which is absolutely necessary to get PC users into VR in the first place.

    It's called "Entry-Level" for a reason; People aren't going to run out and buy the most expensive VR system money can buy if they haven't even been convinced that VR is worth trying, yet.   They'll start on the Rift-S,  love it, and THEN (if they can afford it) start looking at higher-end products.
    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,549 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    CrashFu said:
    Mradr said:
    CrashFu said:
    Apart from all of the other very obvious reasons for them to focus on achieving mass adoption before pandering to small numbers of wealthy, high-end tech nerds...

    Maybe they're holding off the CV2 until they've perfected certain features they want to include in it?  Y'know, like foveated rendering and eye-tracking and all that.
    1) Yet, the top 1% still holds more power than the other 90% of the world pop. What's your point?
    2) Can't perfect what isn't out there. You need demo hardware and software before anyone can use such a device. That means you NEED to already deploying early revisions on what you want to come out in the future. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any rumors or word on this right now. The only world we have right now is that they discontinue a higher end project. That rumor came out around the same time as someone leaving Oculus and follow by updates of a Rift S.
    3) The HMD cost isn't the entry point into PC VR - its the PC it self. The hardware and software of the PC makes or breaks if a customer can even run VR in the first place.
    4) Another 3 years is a long ass time to wait. The people with money are looking for their next high end right now and they are the ones usually willing to spend more on games than a bunch of people that already had a hard time buying the headset in the first place.
    5) Mass adoption needs a base - PCVR doesn't give it a base or starting point to focus on how well the software should run with in a given price point. PC - is wildly different per user and environment. Even if you have the same hardware - performance can widely swing depending on what that user is using the computer for.
    6) Low end users already have options GO, Quest, CV1 (do to age and cost), and now Rift S. How many more options do low end users need? FREE!? LOL
    1.  All that wealth doesn't matter much to the VR industry unless you're willing to pay 10x the price for every piece of software you buy.   One rich kid buying a game for $10 is not a replacement for 10 average-wealth people buying a ten copies for $10 each,  and if the developers can't expect a large enough market, they aren't going to bother making VR software in the first place.

    3.  Typical rich kid. You honestly think most people don't see any difference between spending $400 on an entertainment product and spending $1000+?     And like Aekero said, the higher the VR system specs, the more expensive of a computer you need to run it.  So higher specs mean an exponentially higher overall price.  In the end, we're talking a VR setup for as low as $900 (including computer) for the Rift-S, and a minimum of $3000 for the kind of specs some of you are demanding.  You think that doesn't make a difference to the average tech consumer?   I had to work overtime every week for three years just to afford my current PC and the CV1 at launch,  and I only did it because I'm such a hardcore enthusiast that I HAD to be on the ground floor of modern VR.   If I had to spend that kind of money again, I'd rather put it towards a new car or healthcare or something I actually need.

    4. If the "PC Master Race" was willing to spend  "more on games" then why have PC games been devalued so drastically compared to console games? (I blame Valve's irresponsible business practices, mostly, but I'm sure there's more to it than that alone)  Console gamers are still willing to pay $40-60 for a single game, whereas PC gamers throw a tantrum if developers ask more than $10.  Hell, if wealthy PC gamers were buying soooooo many games, why has Viveport had to push their unlimited-games monthly subscription plan?  Weren't all the Vive Pro and high-end third-party device owners buying enough games?

    Suppose you'll be telling me about "trickle-down economics" next, huh?

    6.  Go exists for a wildly different purpose than the Quest or Rift-S,  and Rift-S has benefits that Quest does not  (full connectivity to PC, non-reliance on a battery, being powered by a CPU and GPU that isn't the size of a graham-cracker..)    And the point of Rift-S is to replace the CV1 as THE Entry-Level PC VR system,  to improve on the quality and ease-of-use of the entry-level experience,  which is absolutely necessary to get PC users into VR in the first place.

    It's called "Entry-Level" for a reason; People aren't going to run out and buy the most expensive VR system money can buy if they haven't even been convinced that VR is worth trying, yet.   They'll start on the Rift-S,  love it, and THEN (if they can afford it) start looking at higher-end products.
    1) If we look at mobile - that isn't what is happening though. Your market went down instead of paying 10$ per person that could afford it - the market had to make the software cheaper so more could afford it on their lower end phone. Your software went from 10$ a person down to 1$ per person meaning you have to sell it 10 times and that also mean 10 customers now you have to support if there any bugs or changes/differences on the device it self (because PC VR is going to be like without a base). This means value to scale gets mess up pretty quickly. If you sell it for 10$ then you are a rich kid if we follow your logic. No different than when people complain that games are 60$ when games continue to keep getting bigger and more advance. Console owners threaten back in 2012 or 2014 that they will stop buying games if they continue to stay at 60$ - that is why they came out with the new 40$ price point. So don't tell me consoles are willing to pay for it:) they also see a value to product too.

    2) Again, doesn't matter how you look at it - the entry point isn't the HMD its the computer cost. A typical computer that is going to run VR is going to run you around 800$ to 1000$ just to get into VR. Over time though , hardware does get better. Most of the time though the only hardware you need to upgrade is the GPU - but that still going to be a good chunk of a entry point first that customer has to be able to support in the first place. IF you can't afford a nice GPU with in a given time frame - why do you expect that everyone else should lower their requirements to meet yours?

    3) It's call control - MS - you know that thing that makes windows - wanted to move a good chunk of their platform over to something they control 100%. This means from how the game is made right down to how the game its produce and solid to end customers. It's a global control of the platform. This way they can make every dollar of your spending on the console it self. It's a great business plan and everyone fall for it because there was money from the rich kids buying the console on day one.

    4) It's work so far. If it didn't why are we still in 2019 and not back in 2012 all dead:)? Wasn't the world to end then? Next you will tell me the world is flat. Really, though, lets be straight here. There are many options out there already for people that can't afford a Rift right now with the Quest coming out. It lowers the requirements all the way down to a base (much like a console) that will be like I said with number 3. There wont be much though and the cost of owner ship drops like a rock from 800-1000$ + 300-400$ headset right to 400$ for everything. That is a WAY better value for lower end than what Rift S provides to a customer that doesn't have the money for VR in the first place.

    5) Quest will get better over time. Quest 2 will be what  Rift - S is now, but even better with whatever tracking they come out with advances. Your logic fails hard when you consider the value, again, for lower end users are getting in return.

    6) Sure, but then Oculus needs to come out and say that it is going to be use for the entry point for PCVR instead of just releasing the Rift S out of no where. As it stands , the Rift - S replaces the CV1 as the high end market. That isn't good and Oculus should hear us out from people that want something more. Something that we can also spend our money on to get to the next stage of VR. People need options - they shouldn't be stuck with someone low end because someone else can't afford it. With that said - and as I said else where - they don't have to go balls to wall crazy with pricing here. There is a market around the 500-800 mark willing to pay that to get something that is going to be better than what else is there on the market. People will want that and it shows off what VR can be like in the future for them - while they MAKE THE CHOICE to spend less and get something in their price point instead.

    7) I feel like you miss understand advances in both FOVA, Eye tracking, Focal Point, and VSR can provide along with higher end hardware. To say nothing can support more hardware is a bit of a miss understanding on what is going on and what is just around the price barrier if we cross it.

    8) No, hardware needs to be in the hands of Devs - DEVS are what create our software and brings more options than in house along can provide. You need both - sure - but input from your devs goes a lot further than what in house might be blinded to. Sometimes having more eyes on a products produces better results than just a pair of eyes can provide.

    9) Vive going under wasn't because of their games - it was the value of the product to not owning their own store to playing cache up to Oculus. Aka, Vive problems are self created and are not a good example of much other than how to shoot your self in the foot.

    10) Most PC gamers don't throw tantrums over price of game unless the value of the game has went down. I honestly haven't seen anyone really cry about prices for a PC game while I see and hear about it on consoles all the time. I mean the fact that loot boxes became a thing for PC FIRST goes to show they are willing to pay more than consoles that follow. Even if they did, look at who is crying over the prices. It's not the "Rich kids" as you put it -its the lower end market wanting more.

    11) A CV2 will not be able to be the next entry point. Instead - if they keep the following same idea and price point - the Rift S Plus will be more of another smaller upgrade. Something like the Half Dome they show off last OC would be at least 6 years out before the technology would be cheap enough for the mass market. I don't know about you - but I don't want to wait 6 more years before VR could be something more just because low end customers can't afford a little more of a price point. I mean hell, by then Pimax would have a 8k by 8k calling it 16k and honestly, at that pixel pitch - I dont think you are going to see much in the way of an SDE and clearity issues. They will be releasing their eye tracking by end of this year - so they should have a few years worth of testing and fixing of their eye tracking software by then as well. Vive Pro eye is already showing it's possible. The only problem is you can't have eye tracking at 300-400$ if you also plan to upgrade the screens along with it and keep other features too such as the new tracking or improve on the new tracking at any level. Something will have to give - and Rift S proves that fact by them NOT going for some other features found in their other products and then Nate saying they save money just on a hing support, like - lol?!!!

    Right, you need both as a option as I said at the start:) Low end though already has a product though. Along with addition to Rift-S - high end doesn't have anything now because of the CV 1 aging out. "Rich kid" or not - there is another side of the mass market that also has a place other than low end - none "Rich kid" customers. Once the low end trys it - they too will also want more - but at that point they will have to make a choice - stay with that they have and save up for the next high end or get the next low end. Right now,  they if they try Rift S - there is nothing more to go up to in the Oculus product line. 

    Not saying what Oculus should do - its their company at the end of the day - but I think ignoring the higher end market isn't a good thing and people agreeing they should ignore it will most likely shoot themselves in the foot as well. Again - they don't need to pull a Vive Pro Sumer here - they just need to target two different prices point and allow their customers to scale up and down as they want for the software they want to work with. Options are a good thing and it opens the door more than it closes any. At the same time - Oculus DOES need to be more open with their thinking - this was a sneaky move and opens the floor to a lot of questions we like to have an answer to now. 

    TLDR (I think, please read and use the wall of text sections/points instead of these smaller ones):
    1) Price of your hardware scales to your Software/store. 
    2) The computer is still your entry cost - not the HMD.
    3) Microsoft wanted more money and there for console what the market was like.
    4) Quest is an AMAZING value for low end when you consider you don't have to buy a computer along with it to support the so call low end - or entry into VR.
    5) Quest is only going to get better on each release for new customers and for the low end requirements to entry into VR.
    6) Oculus should be more open and tells us what the heck Rift-S price point is about is and if they still plan to release a CV2 price point HMD.
    7)There are both hardware and software advances coming that will support Quest displays already - why are we limiting it on the Rift S just to save a few dollars?
    8) Devs need Half Dome in hands to work on software. Software is King. Devs can also point out problems they are having that a research might blinded themselves to because they always do it the same way while a Dev might try to do it in another way.
    9) Vive makes poor decisions
    10) People bitch when there are no options for them in prices. PC gamer though are willing to shell out more money if they see a value in a product.
    11) CV2 can't be the next entry/product if Oculus only plans in the future to release Rift-S mass market products. The technology cost alone would push us up to 6 years before we see any 300-400 device like that.
  • Digikid1Digikid1 Posts: 2,059 Valuable Player
    We need “huge wall of text” tags. LOL

    Some interesting points though. 
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,850 Valuable Player
    Yeah too much text for my short attention span lol.
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case| Rift S | Quest |
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,549 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    Digikid1 said:
    We need “huge wall of text” tags. LOL

    Some interesting points though. 
    I mean the thread had the words "brace-yourselves" come on guys (lol)! I added a TLDR... I think that is right...  Maybe we should call the tag "m-wall"?
  • HiThere_HiThere_ Posts: 1,276
    3Jane
    Brixmis said:
    I could swear I heard the Oculus guy saying this headset isn't aimed at current Rift owners. So why are people who have a Rift constantly moaning about how they don't want a Rift S?
    Before : Because we didn't hear him say it.
    Now : Because if your IPD isn't ~64mm and your CV1 breaks down, you have nothing to buy.
    After : Because CV1-S means CV2 isn't coming anytime soon.
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,690 Volunteer Moderator
    While the Rift-S has less usb ports, it's going to be interesting to see if it has less usb issues.
    There were 3 main problems with Rift usb:
    - not enough ports on pc
    - too much bandwidth for a single usb controller if you had too many sensors connected at once
    - general usb incompatibility

    The Rift-S fixes the first one. 4 usb cables (for my setup) down to 1. But we still have potential usb incompatibility, plus we have 166% greater bandwidth usage than 4 cables all put onto a single cable (and therefore not possible to split over multiple controllers). If a single usb controller had trouble with 3 cameras (which is why oculus recommend only 2 cameras on usb3 and 3rd/4th on usb2), imagine it now handling 5 from the Rift-S.
    (Unless there's a snapdragon hidden in the Rift-S so they can use it's DSP to process tracking like the Quest does).

  • ShocksVRShocksVR Posts: 467
    Trinity
    edited March 26
    (Unless there's a snapdragon hidden in the Rift-S so they can use it's DSP to process tracking like the Quest does).

    Ya, I'm very curious to see if this is the case.  But I would assume they fixed the USB bandwidth issue, that was one of the biggest drawbacks of the original CV1.

    i7-7700k, GTX 1080Ti (11G) || MSI B150m (1 USB controller) + Inateck 4-port USB to PCIe (2nd USB controller)
    Oculus Rift S
    Oculus GO
    Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale
  • KlodsBrikKlodsBrik Posts: 1,201
    Wintermute
    edited March 26
    Wanna take part in an IPD poll:
    https://www.strawpoll.me/17684281


    Be good, die great !
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,549 Valuable Player
    edited March 26
    kojack said:
    While the Rift-S has less usb ports, it's going to be interesting to see if it has less usb issues.
    There were 3 main problems with Rift usb:
    - not enough ports on pc
    - too much bandwidth for a single usb controller if you had too many sensors connected at once
    - general usb incompatibility

    The Rift-S fixes the first one. 4 usb cables (for my setup) down to 1. But we still have potential usb incompatibility, plus we have 166% greater bandwidth usage than 4 cables all put onto a single cable (and therefore not possible to split over multiple controllers). If a single usb controller had trouble with 3 cameras (which is why oculus recommend only 2 cameras on usb3 and 3rd/4th on usb2), imagine it now handling 5 from the Rift-S.
    (Unless there's a snapdragon hidden in the Rift-S so they can use it's DSP to process tracking like the Quest does).

    I thought the issue wasn't the bandwidth, but the bandwidth to switching was the issue. How USB works is that it does switch between each device and there for you could have a max of 128 devices small devices that don't do anything and only a few large ones that require their full bandwidth. The total bandwidth though was still split between each device requiring its own overhead per device. There for, the less connected devices - the more bandwidth one large device can take on so long as it is seen as one large device.

    IF anything - they will require that you plug the USB port into its own controller and not share it with other devices.
Sign In or Register to comment.