High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath — Oculus
New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath

bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,916 Valuable Player
edited April 12 in General
«13456714

Comments

  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,440 Valuable Player
    edited April 12
    Don't know what to make of that really. I'm already aware they want to keep the cost of VR headsets down which isn't a bad thing. But if Rift 2 isn't being worked on they could have bumped the resolution of the Rift -S to that of the Oculus Quest at-least. 

    That's quite a short interview though and I'm a bit confused by it tbh. You could read into it that there isn't a Rift 2 being developed, but I'm sure there must be one if Oculus want to continue with PC -VR?
  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 402
    Trinity
    edited April 12
    I think we can expect future Rifts to be around the $400 price point; that's a good thing IMO.  And with Rubin hinting the Rift refresh cycle may now be closer to a cell phone refresh cycle, perhaps they'll release a new model every 2 years.

    Either way, I believe Rubin said somewhere that the market just isn't there for $450+ VR headsets (that isn't to say VR super enthusiasts won't pay $800+ for VR from other competitors).  And if any company has the data to know what consumers want and their spending limits, it would be Facebook.
    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
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    Fortunately, I think the specs of Rift-S will be more than good enough for the large majority of people.

    But for the ones who think they absolutely NEED something "better"... I hope Oculus will either consider adding third-party headset support to Home in the near future, or continue being supportive of programs like Revive.

    'cause even high-spec tech snobs shouldn't have to miss out on the best content and community that VR has to offer. :kissing_heart:
    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • RichooalRichooal Posts: 1,095
    Wintermute
    It seems to be as I feared. Oculus was always about leading edge VR experiences. Facebook was always about leading edge social media.

    Facebook's huge financial backing has been more than helpful to develop the hardware and software, but it looks like now they have hobbled the VR experience part in favour of the social media part.

    Facebook searched the world to find the best people to work on VR. They have many employees who are used to working at the forefront of technological development. I'm wondering how many more will jump ship.
    i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - 0 PROBLEMS
  • Rob_In_PhoenixRob_In_Phoenix Posts: 300
    Trinity
    Rubin also mentions the he doesn't consider 2nd generation unless it has full body tracking so it's going to be Rift-S and Quest  foreseeable future for 6DOF.

    Dang.  That's a bad outlook.  I'm all about slowing down increments to provide meaningful upgrades and revisions but why not decent increased resolution, eye tracking, and FOV as a 2nd generation goal for Rift.  I'd rather see that happen first.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,916 Valuable Player
    edited April 12
    CrashFu said:
    Fortunately, I think the specs of Rift-S will be more than good enough for the large majority of people.

    But for the ones who think they absolutely NEED something "better"... I hope Oculus will either consider adding third-party headset support to Home in the near future, or continue being supportive of programs like Revive.

    'cause even high-spec tech snobs shouldn't have to miss out on the best content and community that VR has to offer. :kissing_heart:
    Nailed it (but without the shot a cross the bow of the high end users). Imo it's not a problem if Oculus can get official support for high end VR hmds but if they don't it really sucks for those happy to invest a little more into VR but realise that oculus still have the best software infrastructure
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,931 Valuable Player
    I wouldn't worry too much. You don't spend millions developing new technology like that shown in the Half Dome prototype and not use it.

    Oculus need high end PC VR, I suspect something may have been lost in translation. We'll get our Tock in three year's time.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,916 Valuable Player
    3 years is a hell of a long time snowdog. It was not so long ago you were saying oculus would never release a very minor upgrade and that it would be madness to wait till 2021 for a CV2 :(
    I am not knocking rift S. Getting affordable reasonable quality VR for mass adoption is vital but imo a product to excite at the high end too keep people excited (as well as develop tech to trickle down) is also good imo. There is a reason Nvidia sell rtx 2080ti even tho most people don't want to spend beyond an rtx 2060 (and I am being generous at that).
    It may not matter, ideally I do not want to leave oculus infrastructure however for that to happen I think all my eggs are going in the openXR basket. 
    It really is valves move now, however with even windows MR offering higher resolution , higher FOV devices than rift AND with adjustable IPD my confidence in oculus hardware is at an all time low even though their software rocks
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • saami81saami81 Posts: 140
    Art3mis
    I believe that Oculus did Rift-S because there are no good and cheapish inside-out tracking headsets yet. Samsung odyssey+ is close, but with only 2 cameras it fall short to deliver. Not sure, if controllers are as good as touch controllers either.
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,531 Valuable Player
    Yep just as I suspected...
    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|
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,569 Valuable Player
    I made a similar statement some time ago to the same effect about the future of a high-end approach from the company. 

    I would however like to see another article from another media source (not translated) that corroborates the out come of this feature, as there are some discontinuity with it. Though it is clear that Quest and Rift-S are the move in a new direction that may leave the original CV1 community at a cross-roads they will not like.
    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
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,569 Valuable Player
    snowdog said:
    I wouldn't worry too much. You don't spend millions developing new technology like that shown in the Half Dome prototype and not use it.
    ......

    Constant R&D is a factor in any consumer electronics developer, it does not mean that the prototype is guaranteed to appear as a full blown product, but that possibly aspects of the design will be incorporated in future development. But to use one prototype as an example that some thing is defiantly going to happen usually leads to disappointment. To be frank the Half Dome may have been a "line of thought" exercise - the same way Apple developed their '3D Tablet' project, shown to selected media, and never to see the light of day again - it may happen, but was not a direct successor to the current tablet range.

    Especially considering that Half Dome prototype shown was on a CV1 base, now discontinued, there is more likelihood that the concept will be seen (if even) if a system much father down the cycle than was speculated at the time. I reiterate that I expect to see a future high-end headset from the company, but it is looking even more likely that it would not be a successor to the CV1 but would be taken in a new direction, in a timescale considerably longer than some in the energetic aspect of the VR community would like.
    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
  • OmegaM4NOmegaM4N Posts: 495
    Trinity
    Oculus are not the only car in the race though. ;)
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,569 Valuable Player
    OmegaM4N said:
    Oculus are not the only car in the race though. ;)

    Agreed, but some in the VR community only have eyes for Oculus VR!
    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
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,531 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    OmegaM4N said:
    Oculus are not the only car in the race though. ;)

    Agreed, but some in the VR community only have eyes for Oculus VR!
    Yeah I used to fall in that category, not any more though.
    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|
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,368 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    snowdog said:
    I wouldn't worry too much. You don't spend millions developing new technology like that shown in the Half Dome prototype and not use it.
    ......
    Especially considering that Half Dome prototype shown was on a CV1 base, now discontinued, there is more likelihood that the concept will be seen (if even) if a system much father down the cycle than was speculated at the time. I reiterate that I expect to see a future high-end headset from the company, but it is looking even more likely that it would not be a successor to the CV1 but would be taken in a new direction, in a timescale considerably longer than some in the energetic aspect of the VR community would like.
    As I said - Eye tracking and high res screens wont be a thing for 6+ years now. If their goal is to keep it low price - you can say good bye to a lot of advancements though as the cost alone will be WAY above their target price point now. A CV2 with 4k, 4k that could use eye tracking will just have to wait until other headsets go past that and bring down the cost of the panels. There just wont be enough money room for any more future upgrades so we will have to play the time game instead to bring down the cost of the hardware instead.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,440 Valuable Player
    I just wonder why Oculus partnered with Lenovo to make the Rift -S. I might be totally wrong when I say this, but it comes across like they didn't have time for PC -VR, so used another company for Rift -S while they continued working on Oculus Quest. Where they not capable of designing the Rift -S themselves? Why did they hand it PC -VR over to Lenovo?

    I do think Oculus has made the correct decision bringing out a headset for mid range PC's though. That way everyone can get into VR, but they need to be more transparent about their road map concerning PC -VR. They know eye tracking technology is being developed, so instead of talking about body tracking why don't they talk about eye tracking which I'm sure is just around the corner?

    What they have said so far regarding PC -VR is a bit of a mixed bag tbh. It was only last year they spoke about eye tracking and half dome, so if any of the above comments are true, then have they just decided not to bring these features to PC -VR until body tracking is also available?

    I just don't want Oculus PC -VR to get left behind and right now it won't because of Nvidia's graphic card pricing. We all no you need a beefy PC to run higher resolutions, but it only takes one VR company to add eye tracking n their headset and Oculus could get left behind. This makes me bit weary about getting PC -VR games from their store because they are being a bit vague if this article is true.

    I would like to know why the partnered with Lenovo though instead of creating their own PC -VR headset.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,368 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    CrashFu said:
    Fortunately, I think the specs of Rift-S will be more than good enough for the large majority of people.

    But for the ones who think they absolutely NEED something "better"... I hope Oculus will either consider adding third-party headset support to Home in the near future, or continue being supportive of programs like Revive.

    'cause even high-spec tech snobs shouldn't have to miss out on the best content and community that VR has to offer. :kissing_heart:
    As I ask before - if Price alone was the only thing stopping people from getting into VR - why are we still sitting at less than 1% in Steam while there is still room for a 20% growth? Even 5% more would be amazing for VR. Remember, the CV1 is going to be 50$ cheaper than Rift S will be on release. Plus - all the used headsets are gong for 50-150$ for full unit. Price wasn't the issue - it was something else. It could be many things such as lack of vr software people want, the setup time in and out, lack of specs, lack of VR space, or etc. PRICE should've already brought in more users if that was the case when the headset went on sell for many locations.

    If price alone was the biggest problem - then PCVR isn't going to be their target anyways. The cost of entry starts with the PC and dies with the PC as we see with consoles todays. People just don't care to own a PC for gaming because it's "too hard" to keep up with. That is where Quest will come in - but the begs the question - how much focus are they going to put in for PCVR and not mobile gaming instead?

    Considering us snobs are what pay the way for VR to get this far in the first place, or any technology for that matter, and I feel like I can be mean just a bit and take a ban warring:) But I feel like you can just shut the fuck up for once:) Thanks!

    I'm just sorry, but no one wants to wear a VR condom suit just to call it CV2 - the dude is lost in what we consider higher end VR right now and it shows super bad for people that don't understand that price alone isn't the reason VR for PC just hasn't take off as big. There are just two markets in this world and people should just understand that both are correct in their own way. I can understand why some people will want price over anything else, but to call people snobs for wanting something higher end - is just plain wrong. Not like I talking 1000s for a headset here - but with in reason there is a market between 600-800, much like the og Vive and Rift, will be willing to spend some money to get the next generation headset in terms of just some higher specs and features.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,368 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    RedRizla said:
    I just wonder why Oculus partnered with Lenovo to make the Rift -S. I might be totally wrong when I say this, but it comes across like they didn't have time for PC -VR, so used another company for Rift -S while they continued working on Oculus Quest. Where they not capable of designing the Rift -S themselves? Why did they hand it PC -VR over to Lenovo?

    I do think Oculus has made the correct decision bringing out a headset for mid range PC's though. That way everyone can get into VR, but they need to be more transparent about their road map concerning PC -VR. They know eye tracking technology is being developed, so instead of talking about body tracking why don't they talk about eye tracking which I'm sure is just around the corner?

    What they have said so far regarding PC -VR is a bit of a mixed bag tbh. It was only last year they spoke about eye tracking and half dome, so if any of the above comments are true, then have they just decided not to bring these features to PC -VR until body tracking is also available?

    I just don't want Oculus PC -VR to get left behind and right now it won't because of Nvidia's graphic card pricing. We all no you need a beefy PC to run higher resolutions, but it only takes one VR company to add eye tracking n their headset and Oculus could get left behind. This makes me bit weary about getting PC -VR games from their store because they are being a bit vague if this article is true.

    I would like to know why the partnered with Lenovo though instead of creating their own PC -VR headset.
    Base off what they said in interviews - it was just that - they didn't have the time to work on Rift S and instead wanted to focus more on Quest and getting it out. It makes sense - but yea, Rift S is a Lenovo product with Oculus oversight/technology. 

    Their goal is to go after the money and the people - PCVR just isnt the way. Many people here already made the claim GO was outselling PCVR - at the end of the day - a company going to have limited resources - and they're going to target the biggest market first. PCVR wont die - just wont see as many advancements as before as they try to keep cost low. Unless they come out with another headset with the goal to give a higher end experience - Rift S design is what we will see going in the future.

    At best - it sounds like they are maybe testing the waters to see and work with other companies much like how WMR base design was used and created by other partners. In a way this sounds like a good thing as it might mean they will open their designs for other companies to take part in to create PCVR headsets. Less time Oculus has to spend researching, testing, demoing, manufacturing, dealing with support, etc if they can just sell the LC for their technology scope (location, eye tracking, controllers, software, store access, etc) and then everyone has access to their software and store. They could even go a far as to give kick backs on their stores back to their partners for every unit they sell and buys software on the store. Win win for both companies. Possible win for the end customer as well as it should open the doors to scale options much like we see with WMR right now from super low cost headsets to higher end ones that cost a bit more. Funny, enough, the one that cost the most - sells the best:) with everyone saying it just has the best specs for what you are paying for ;)) I have a feeling that will tick off the none snobs I assume:))


  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,959 Volunteer Moderator
    For the sake of argument, I'm going to call 2160 x 2160 per eye, high-end.

    At some point (we can argue on when), we'll have GPUs capable of running high-end at acceptable frame rates in the games and apps that we like to use.

    Or we'll have wotking foveated rendering, to enable currently available top-end GPUs (or perhaps less than top-end) to run them at acceptable frame rates.

    imho neither of those cases are available to use now (without rendering down or upscaling or whatever) and probably not available within the next 12 months.

    I think of myself as an enthusiast, but only when either is available, that's when I'll bemoan Oculus not having a high-end headset... or, more likely if another manufacture has the headset available, I'll just buy it (within the limits of my budget) without bemoaning anything.
    Intel 5820K OC@4Ghz, Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1903 (18362.239)
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,531 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    RedRizla said:
    I just wonder why Oculus partnered with Lenovo to make the Rift -S. I might be totally wrong when I say this, but it comes across like they didn't have time for PC -VR, so used another company for Rift -S while they continued working on Oculus Quest. Where they not capable of designing the Rift -S themselves? Why did they hand it PC -VR over to Lenovo?

    I do think Oculus has made the correct decision bringing out a headset for mid range PC's though. That way everyone can get into VR, but they need to be more transparent about their road map concerning PC -VR. They know eye tracking technology is being developed, so instead of talking about body tracking why don't they talk about eye tracking which I'm sure is just around the corner?

    What they have said so far regarding PC -VR is a bit of a mixed bag tbh. It was only last year they spoke about eye tracking and half dome, so if any of the above comments are true, then have they just decided not to bring these features to PC -VR until body tracking is also available?

    I just don't want Oculus PC -VR to get left behind and right now it won't because of Nvidia's graphic card pricing. We all no you need a beefy PC to run higher resolutions, but it only takes one VR company to add eye tracking n their headset and Oculus could get left behind. This makes me bit weary about getting PC -VR games from their store because they are being a bit vague if this article is true.

    I would like to know why the partnered with Lenovo though instead of creating their own PC -VR headset.
    My opinion.
    PC-VR is no longer a large focus of Oculus. They are pushing more for larger adoption utilizing the social aspect of FB.
    They settled on partnering with Lenova to give the PC-VR users a little something especially with the newer headsets that have come out and are about to come out in hopes of not giving up too much of their existing PC-VR market.

    They have done a huge about face from this time around a year ago with the talk of Half Dome, which appeared would once again lead the PC-VR industry in technology.
    I hate to say it, but I will likely get the Rift S. Just for my Oculus games I do enjoy, and that Vador Immortal is just looking very sweet. But for what I use VR for the most, my combat flight sims and maybe racing sims one day, I will also likely grab the Valve Index. It offers more of what I want.
    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|
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    Anyone who thinks that expensive, high-end tech pushes the industry forward is delusional.

    Prototypes push the industry forward, by testing out new technology that will eventually benefit all consumers.  

    Higher quality entry-level devices
    like the Rift-S push the industry forward, by making people aware that this new technology isn't just science fiction or a toy for rich kids; it's something that almost anyone can get their hands on, and it's worth it.

    Expensive, high-end devices  don't do any of those things.  They don't create any new tech that doesn't already exist in prototypes, they just use the most expensive of what's already available. To the few that can actually afford to buy them, they're just early access to the quality of tech that will be cheap a few years later.  To everyone else, they just reinforce the idea that this tech isn't affordable and might as well be science fiction, effectively destroying interest in VR rather than creating it.

    Also, I guarantee that any company pushing out high-end VR systems now is just in it for a short-term cash grab. They know they're never going to secure a large market at that price level, which means they probably aren't planning to invest much into content creation or any kind of long-term software improvements.  Heck, they might not even care about the quality of the device at launch, so long as it looks good enough to secure preorders and first-day sales.

    In other words, you may be willing to spend top-dollar to get slightly better tech today instead of a couple years from now, but you will almost certainly regret it.  If you're smart, you'll wait for the technology to become cheaper, and only buy from companies who have proven that they're invested in the industry long-term.
    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,368 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    CrashFu said:

    In other words, you may be willing to spend top-dollar to get slightly better tech today instead of a couple years from now, but you will almost certainly regret it.  If you're smart, you'll wait for the technology to become cheaper, and only buy from companies who have proven that they're invested in the industry long-term.
    If everyone had that mind set - no one would buy the newest stuff - no one would be buying a Ryzen 2 - no one would be buying a Intel i9. No one would be buying 20s cards and everyone will be using 10s or even cheaper 9s cards. The fact that isn't the case just proves how blind to the market you are... price isn't everything and you need to learn that and understand there are different markets that want different things. My gosh! One market does help push and makes things cheaper for the next. Just because YOU can't afford something that is going to be better - doesn't mean others can't. This has been a thing FAR longer than you been alive my boy.

    The fact you keep having to say this when there is other proof in front of your face goes to show you don't fully understand the bigger picture at play. The CV1 was already cheaper than the Rift S will be coming out as and yet we are still sitting at 1% - EXPLAIN this first before trying to shout that price is the only way forward. History of other products goes to show other wise, in many cases, that isn't the case. With the first cell phones being the cost of todays computers and yet - they were value for communication that FAR existed what price to their value ever was. We have to hit good enough marks before the masses will take it up. If we do not hit good enough makers - then there will never been a future for that product always being that bit shy of being a great product.

    You keep going on about 1000s + prices - WHY not trying to keep it with in reason for once - 800-600$ isn't that bad really. People spend that much every year just for fun.

    No, price alone is shit reason - what will push VR forward is the following:
    1) Getting VR software people want to play - this is KING KEY to VR and any other platform
    2) Remove the extra mess to get into VR - this would include but not limited to external sensor setup, in and out of VR when needed, easy of use, plug and play design, comfort, and all around good enough specs that doesn't look like they are missing something from their past experiences (aka flat screen gaming).
    3) Finding software/hardware ways to lower hardware requirements while still providing a way to meet or go above what we have now (this mainly aiming at visual clarity much like the resolution wars of sub 1080p).

    Problems with VR:
    1) Clarity - seeing more details in what we have. Right now - if you compare any VR headset to what a 1080p screen provides - hands down - most people will say 1080p screen looks better. The PPD is just soo much better than what we have at this time. We would need to either double or triple current resolutions just to be close current monitors are like.
    2) The lack of software compare to what there is for flat screen gaming. The lack of production software compare to flat screen.
    3) It's not easy to get in and out of VR. 
    4) The space require for VR is costly let alone having to be connected to a PC or with in the same room as to where it is.
    5) PC hardware cost.
    6) etc

    Rift S does a good job meeting a NUMBER of these - but it also made trade offs in the process and that is going to hurt it as well. If another 200-400$ can help fix some of the other issues - than it be worth it for the every day VR user that wants to get into VR and stay in VR. Choice is king there and that is what makes the market soo amazing for people that are looking to get the newest stuff and with people that don't always need the newest stuff - but wants something to just work for them.

    For example, if it cost me another 400 for the Rift S+ that included 2k or 4k screens (dual) with eye tracking (even keeping with the same 5 camera vision tracking / everything else the same) - YOU DAM WELL WILL see me buying that headset along with many other people (over 6000 backers for example for Pimax at over 4mil) that would see that as an amazing value. Not only are we getting higher clarity, but also a method that can help render the target resources needed to run it. You wont be able to do both at Rift S current price point even if you dream about it. The point is - you said increasing prices wont help - but CLEARLY it can help in this case and is something that needs to be taken at heart if a product is only going to choose lower price point just to starve the rest of the advancements that could come sooner.

    I mean I can't see what Oculus is doing - but as of right now - without any other communication of Oculus - it really doesn't sound like they are going to have a higher end model and there for - is running the risk (as everyone sees) turning down some of their customer market in hopes that lower price and small advancements will bring enough newer players in-instead. It may be well possible they are planing on a CV2 and we might hear more about it soon with Vavle releasing their plans of the Index - but until that happens - I really question the focus for PCVR right now from them and people like that don't need to be call a rich snob from you when we just want good VR.
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,142
    Wintermute
    edited April 13
    CrashFu said:
    Anyone who thinks that expensive, high-end tech pushes the industry forward is delusional.
    Um, yeah, that's why companies don't put out $2000 graphics cards and $3000 CPUs.

    High-end tech is where you make money testing new technology for future products. Sales are low, but margins are high and you see how it works in the real world rather than your labs.

    I can see why Oculus might want to pass on the high-end--all Facebook really care about is controlling the VR social media market and they don't need their own headsets to do that--but the expensive high-end tech is precisely what does push the industry forward.

    We'd still be running DOS on a 486 otherwise.

    I don't care that much because I'm not tied to Oculus, but I guess I'll have to wait and see what comes out of whatever companies the ex-Oculus folks have moved to.
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  You create this myth to convince yourselves that elitism has merit, and to try and hold on to your fading relevance as early-adopters as the tech approaches mainstream. All your patronage of high-end tech really accomplishes is encouraging companies to keep the tech expensive for as long as possible, until the next generation of products forces them to sell at a reasonable price.

    If it weren't for the high-end market, cutting-edge technology would go from prototype to entry-level affordable in a fraction of the time it does now.  And if companies weren't wasting their time developing higher-spec hardware to wow journalists and compete in ****-measuring contests, they'd instead be focused on developing more radical improvements for their next generation products, or adding value to their existing hardware by developing software improvements and content.   VR hasn't gone fully mainstream yet or produced all the features on our collective wishlists because the high-end market is holding us back.

    Don't believe me? Ask yourselves this:  Which companies have contributed the most to the VR industry thus far?  Which ones have given us the most worthwhile content, and the very best content?  Which ones have supported their devices the best after release?  Which ones have gotten the most people into VR? Which companies are keeping this industry alive right now?

    Anyone can see that it's NOT the companies making expensive, high-end hardware.  It's companies like Oculus and Sony, and they've accomplished what they have because they prioritize affordable, entry-level products, not in spite of it.

    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,368 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    CrashFu said:
    This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  You create this myth to convince yourselves that elitism has merit, and to try and hold on to your fading relevance as early-adopters as the tech approaches mainstream. All your patronage of high-end tech really accomplishes is encouraging companies to keep the tech expensive for as long as possible, until the next generation of products forces them to sell at a reasonable price.
    Less than 1% bro - that isn't main stream...

    Also Sony PSVR is consider high end for the market it is in - so are you agreeing then:)?
  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 402
    Trinity
    edited April 13
    @CrashFu Yup.  I only bought into the Rift (late 2016) when I got it for $300 (headset), and only bought Touch after it went down to $100. It has to be affordable (and $400 is still a lot of money !!!)

    Why buy a $800 VR headset when it will be obsolete in 3-4 years anyways; if ppl are willing to pay $800+ to be 1-2 years ahead of the others then so be it.  VR tech is moving quick, and it ain't all about expensive hardware with "max resolution panels" and "high fov". It'll be about eye tracking, body tracking, haptic feedback, 360 precision audio, voice feedback.  VR is gonna need that "Super Software" John Carmack keeps bringing up at his annual Oculus Connect keynote. 

    Keep the refresh price near $400, give us the super software we need, and I'll be happy to upgrade headsets every few years.
    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
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,916 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    CrashFu said:
    This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  You create this myth to convince yourselves that elitism has merit, and to try and hold on to your fading relevance as early-adopters as the tech approaches mainstream. All your patronage of high-end tech really accomplishes is encouraging companies to keep the tech expensive for as long as possible, until the next generation of products forces them to sell at a reasonable price.

    If it weren't for the high-end market, cutting-edge technology would go from prototype to entry-level affordable in a fraction of the time it does now.  And if companies weren't wasting their time developing higher-spec hardware to wow journalists and compete in ****-measuring contests, they'd instead be focused on developing more radical improvements for their next generation products, or adding value to their existing hardware by developing software improvements and content.   VR hasn't gone fully mainstream yet or produced all the features on our collective wishlists because the high-end market is holding us back.

    Don't believe me? Ask yourselves this:  Which companies have contributed the most to the VR industry thus far?  Which ones have given us the most worthwhile content, and the very best content?  Which ones have supported their devices the best after release?  Which ones have gotten the most people into VR? Which companies are keeping this industry alive right now?

    Anyone can see that it's NOT the companies making expensive, high-end hardware.  It's companies like Oculus and Sony, and they've accomplished what they have because they prioritize affordable, entry-level products, not in spite of it.

    Who was it who helped get the rift past it kick starter goals again? 

    Besides it is all relative oculus RiftS is high end in the grand scheme. You just consider high end at a different point so whilst you are peddling this high end elitist stuff there are people with ps3s Xbox 360s and trying a bit of Google cardboard vr who will be wondering who you are talking about

    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,569 Valuable Player
    CrashFu said:
    This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't? 
    .....

    Thanks for sharing your view - obviously I disagree, but understand your passion.

    Just for some clarification, Prosumers are not all rich, its just they pay a premium to be first, its a common misconception that they are rich-elites, generally by animosity to their position to be able to get the next level of engagement. Also the Sony PSVR is seen as a high-end system, as is the OculusVR platform - it is with GO and Quest (and their association previously with Samsung GearVR), they pivot to mid-range away from High-end, (and please I am willing to believe that they may surprise us with a CV2 down the road as a lost leader means to regain image loyalty). 

    Regarding the comment, "...If it weren't for the high-end market, cutting-edge technology would go from prototype to entry-level affordable..." That seems plain wrong on so many levels. Market reaction, market interest, market availability are the key elements driving investing in tooling investment for commercial entry - to be expensive initially means a risk has to be taken and most wont do this until they see something like a Prosumer upswing. Remember since 1995 "expensive" commercial VR systems have existed that only commercial and Prosumers have purchased - it took the efforts of Sony, and then Valve/Oculus to produce cost-reduce hardware, and even after the $699 release of Rift for Facebook to subsidise to the promised-ballpark $399 price point, (subsidise-Prosumer!)

    If Facebook VR is not prepared to fund the High-end (Half-Dome) system for 2020, seen as a successor to the CV1 - we all can understand that, but from the reaction on the forums there still seems to be an interest for a CV2... just not at an "entry level affordability", IMHO. 

    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
Sign In or Register to comment.