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

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Please say it ain't true oculus!

inovatorinovator Posts: 2,562 Valuable Player
edited July 25 in General
Additional  leaks of the new quest have come out showing the lens side of the headset. Reviewer Sabastien had some interesting comments. He said it looked like the lenses were rift s lenses to give a  better visual with less pixels. He believes this may be a quest light with the same 835 snapdragon. The extra new view confirms it doesn't appear to have a physical ipd. Of course is ighter. And he thinks it may be heavily subsidized to make it cheap. Please say it ain't true oculus that this will be the only headset announced  along with some games. Please announce a kick ass headset  or you will have more people disappointed than ever. I really believe there will be something much better announced to the enthusiasts. If not everyone just should face the fact that all facebook may do is create headsrmets with slow cheap improvements to get the goal of a billion users into vr. 

«1345

Comments

  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 7,366 Valuable Player
    Sadly, they don't frequent these forums to say if it is or not. Would be nice if they had a Cybreality replacement, but that's already been discussed.
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,562 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    Sadly, they don't frequent these forums to say if it is or not. Would be nice if they had a Cybreality replacement, but that's already been discussed.
    What gives me hope is I can't see oculus leaking something that would not allow a big surprise at oc and turn heads.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 7,366 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    inovator said:
    RedRizla said:
    Sadly, they don't frequent these forums to say if it is or not. Would be nice if they had a Cybreality replacement, but that's already been discussed.
    What gives me hope is I can't see oculus leaking something that would not allow a big surprise at oc and turn heads.

    I thought they would leak something when they heard the HP G2 was arriving, so I'm the opposite to you on that thinking. Not long to wait and in the meantime, who knows, maybe a PC -VR headset leak. I very much doubt it though.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 5,336 Valuable Player
    Sadly @inovator this plea will go unanswered.

    - The current Oculus management team are not interested in this "niece" of the possible VR market that helped kickstart them.
    - The current Oculus management have focused on low-cost, fast iteration sales to achieve their bosses goal of over a billion users before the end of 2024.
    - The previous management may have been interested in high-end PC VR, but after poor sales with CV1 and lackluster penetration with Rift-S, they have moved on.
    - The "a kick ass headset" can not be made if the R&D teams have moved on - and those working on Half-Dome4?? (what innovation they create is for a Next Gen Quest!)

    Unless at OC7 there is a definitive statement contradicting this - for the medium term Oculus is not focused on high-end VR. It is focused on "good enough" VR!
    urdgfqqehbbb.png
    ** Second 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
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,562 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    Sadly @inovator this plea will go unanswered.

    - The current Oculus management team are not interested in this "niece" of the possible VR market that helped kickstart them.
    - The current Oculus management have focused on low-cost, fast iteration sales to achieve their bosses goal of over a billion users before the end of 2024.
    - The previous management may have been interested in high-end PC VR, but after poor sales with CV1 and lackluster penetration with Rift-S, they have moved on.
    - The "a kick ass headset" can not be made if the R&D teams have moved on - and those working on Half-Dome4?? (what innovation they create is for a Next Gen Quest!)

    Unless at OC7 there is a definitive statement contradicting this - for the medium term Oculus is not focused on high-end VR. It is focused on "good enough" VR!
    You said better than I was able to. Let's hope we are shocked at oc.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 5,336 Valuable Player
    inovator said:
    ....
    You said better than I was able to. Let's hope we are shocked at oc.

    Nah @inovator - you said it fine.
    It is just that I have had way too much practice at taking a realistic and measured look at the business strategy over the well intended hyperbole and wish fulfillment of some postings on Reddit and forums. :) 

    urdgfqqehbbb.png
    ** Second 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
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 5,873 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    inovator said:
    ....
    You said better than I was able to. Let's hope we are shocked at oc.

    Nah @inovator - you said it fine.
    It is just that I have had way too much practice at taking a realistic and measured look at the business strategy over the well intended hyperbole and wish fulfillment of some postings on Reddit and forums. :) 


    I think it makes great sense for Oculus if they aim for a $299 Quest that may appeal more to females. Probably easier to get 1 billion in VR if more females adopt VR ;)

    Not really following all these rumors, I think I'll just await solid info from Oculus, especially when rumors are about a low-end hmd I'd probably never buy. My time is better spent playing Paper Beast, Phantom: Covert Ops and still have not completed Boneworks...
    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"
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 7,366 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    RuneSR2 said:
    kevinw729 said:
    inovator said:
    ....
    You said better than I was able to. Let's hope we are shocked at oc.

    Nah @inovator - you said it fine.
    It is just that I have had way too much practice at taking a realistic and measured look at the business strategy over the well intended hyperbole and wish fulfillment of some postings on Reddit and forums. :) 


    I think it makes great sense for Oculus if they aim for a $299 Quest that may appeal more to females. Probably easier to get 1 billion in VR if more females adopt VR ;)



    Yes, it makes sense to create a cheaper VR headset now that Oculus Go has come to an end. I don't think anyone's disputing the need for a cheap VR headset, but people are still waiting for the highend one, which is what inovator is alluding to I think.

  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 5,336 Valuable Player
    RuneSR2 said:
    .....
    I think it makes great sense for Oculus if they aim for a $299 Quest that may appeal more to females. Probably easier to get 1 billion in VR if more females adopt VR ;)

    Not really following all these rumors, I think I'll just await solid info from Oculus, especially when rumors are about a low-end hmd I'd probably never buy. My time is better spent playing Paper Beast, Phantom: Covert Ops and still have not completed Boneworks...

    I think you have hit on the crux of the matter @[email protected]
    Most of the PC VR community have kinda moved on, and are deep in the Varjo, Valve and HP discussions. Talk about a Quest-Lite, leaves many cold. Great that its going to be a Go-Quest hybrid, (that may explain all the awkward forcing of the term into recent discussions). The Go-Quest-Lite is obviously positioning for the female and non-PC-masterrace market. Not being a dark color a case in point, but not the only clue. And a super low price point will draw an audience.

    But cheap hardware and simplistic formfactor are not the only things it needs, and the danger is without supporting structure (content, marketing and community) it may miss those goals, and then where would that leave the brand?

    For the PC VR community that founded, funded, supported, promoted and championed OculusVR - its really over for them. The goals have changed. Nothing wrong with playing on the Go-Quest-Lite, and I am sure that the Beat Saber community will be glad of the wire free experience. But for the Boneworks, HALO VR, and Half-Life:Alyx VR community... that wont be good enough!    



    urdgfqqehbbb.png
    ** Second 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
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 5,873 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    kevinw729 said:

    But for the Boneworks, HALO VR, and Half-Life:Alyx VR community... that wont be good enough!    




    I'm sure it won't. To be frank, I have no idea if Oculus is going to focus on high-end PCVR for a long time - it certainly isn't my impression, but seems that Oculus likes to surprise us now and then. Also HP and Valve have set the bar rather high if Oculus wants to deliver a high-end solution priced below the Index.  

    A current limitation for making more high-res hmds is the current gpus. With the current mainstream gpus being like RTX 2060 and AMD 5600XT, I can't help thinking that Rift-S is close to the perfect match - if only the sound was better (and it seems there're many quality problems, I blame Lenovo, lol). In fact gpu prices are still quite high, not sure enough has changed for getting more gpu power per $ since 2016-2017. That said, for the price I paid for my GTX 1080, which is 4 years old, you can now get the RTX 2070 Super - which is about 30 % faster. But 30 % faster isn't much when Index already adds 80 % more physical pixels - and Reverb G2 260 % more - compared to the CV1 (and using ss 2.0 I can find many games and apps where 2070 Super will struggle delivering 90 fps to the CV1). 

    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow (or too expensive)!  B)
    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: 5,336 Valuable Player
    RuneSR2 said:
    ...

    I'm sure it won't. To be frank, I have no idea if Oculus is going to focus on high-end PCVR for a long time - it certainly isn't my impression, but seems that Oculus likes to surprise us now and then. Also HP and Valve have set the bar rather high if Oculus wants to deliver a high-end solution priced below the Index.  
    .....
    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow!  B)

    Ha. yeah - blaming things is tight!
    Seriously, I think the progression in these areas have been amazing, and the reason HP and Valve can benefit from a educated market is down to much of what HTC and Oculus (and Sony) achieved first. I will not blame Lenovo - but am looking forward to their new high-end VR system with Varjo (which some still seem to be brushing under the carpet as not relevant).

    Its nice to see HP and Valve getting credit for pushing the bar so high - I noticed a trend in some postings to try and dismiss the high-end VR scene, and always trying to shoehorn Rift-S into these discussions. The Rift-S is a great little low-end headset at a price point that was deemed needed. But trying to claim its comparable to the new phase of high-end dev is a little blinkered. 

    I agree, Oculus liked their surprises, and hopefully the remaining management still carry over this ethos. It would be nice to see a brand new Rift (CV1) replacement with powerful performance launched next year as some have foretold - but I remember how long it took to see the replacement to the CV1, and we know how that turned out in reality (against the promised speculation). 

    urdgfqqehbbb.png
    ** Second 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
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 5,873 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:

    I agree, Oculus liked their surprises, and hopefully the remaining management still carry over this ethos. It would be nice to see a brand new Rift (CV1) replacement with powerful performance launched next year as some have foretold - but I remember how long it took to see the replacement to the CV1, and we know how that turned out in reality (against the promised speculation). 


    I guess as long as Abrash hasn't been fired there's hope - but feels like he's the last man standing... 
    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: 5,336 Valuable Player
    Yeah, it seems that way, as they are not allowed to promote what they are doing, or have to wait for selected presentation slots. Its not that the community is not interested its just we are in full bunker-mode when information is shared, even stuff that could help accelerate the sector. Looking forward to the OC7 presentation from his team, shame that the latest info is that Carmack may not speak. 
    urdgfqqehbbb.png
    ** Second 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
  • HiThere_HiThere_ Posts: 1,288
    3Jane
    Reminds me when they released the CV1-S, with it's higher resolution (but lower then the Quest's), single screen, lower refresh rate, no IPD slider, worse black levels, worse sound... and I couldn't tell if it was a side-step or just a plain downgrade from the CV1... I still can't today, but since I have a 70mm+ IPD it's a complete no-go for me anyway.

    So welcome to the Quest-S : A cheaper Quest :)

    Next Oculus headset : The cardboard GO-S ?
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 7,366 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    RuneSR2 said:
    kevinw729 said:

    But for the Boneworks, HALO VR, and Half-Life:Alyx VR community... that wont be good enough!    




    A current limitation for making more high-res hmds is the current gpus. With the current mainstream gpus being like RTX 2060 and AMD 5600XT, I can't help thinking that Rift-S is close to the perfect match - if only the sound was better (and it seems there're many quality problems, I blame Lenovo, lol). In fact gpu prices are still quite high, not sure enough has changed for getting more gpu power per $ since 2016-2017. That said, for the price I paid for my GTX 1080, which is 4 years old, you can now get the RTX 2070 Super - which is about 30 % faster. But 30 % faster isn't much when Index already adds 80 % more physical pixels - and Reverb G2 260 % more - compared to the CV1 (and using ss 2.0 I can find many games and apps where 2070 Super will struggle delivering 90 fps to the CV1). 

    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow (or too expensive)!  B)

    I don't blame Oculus Facebook for catering for a cheaper headset, but there's no reason in my eyes why they couldn't have catered for those with a higher end graphics card too. I very much doubt those who play sims use a low end graphics card and the sim market is big enough. Companies sell wheels and flight sticks just for sim fans, so sticking in a couple of high res displays and creating a Rift S pro shouldn't have been a great deal.
    Doing this would have also catered for every Pc user and not just those with lower end Pc's.

  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,562 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    kevinw729 said:

    But for the Boneworks, HALO VR, and Half-Life:Alyx VR community... that wont be good enough!    




    A current limitation for making more high-res hmds is the current gpus. With the current mainstream gpus being like RTX 2060 and AMD 5600XT, I can't help thinking that Rift-S is close to the perfect match - if only the sound was better (and it seems there're many quality problems, I blame Lenovo, lol). In fact gpu prices are still quite high, not sure enough has changed for getting more gpu power per $ since 2016-2017. That said, for the price I paid for my GTX 1080, which is 4 years old, you can now get the RTX 2070 Super - which is about 30 % faster. But 30 % faster isn't much when Index already adds 80 % more physical pixels - and Reverb G2 260 % more - compared to the CV1 (and using ss 2.0 I can find many games and apps where 2070 Super will struggle delivering 90 fps to the CV1). 

    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow (or too expensive)!  B)

    I don't blame Oculus Facebook for catering for a cheaper headset, but there's no reason in my eyes why they couldn't of cater for those with a higher end graphics card. I very much doubt those who play sims use a low end graphics card and the sim market is big enough. Companies sell wheels and flight sticks just for sim fans, so sticking in a couple of high res displays and creating a Rift S pro shouldn't have been a great deal.
    Doing this would have also catered for ever Pc user and not just those with lower end Pc's.

    I would love some high end catering from oculus. The problem is the pc users are just a drop in the bucket when compared to their goals. 
  • dburnedburne Posts: 3,743 Valuable Player
    inovator said:
    RedRizla said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    kevinw729 said:

    But for the Boneworks, HALO VR, and Half-Life:Alyx VR community... that wont be good enough!    




    A current limitation for making more high-res hmds is the current gpus. With the current mainstream gpus being like RTX 2060 and AMD 5600XT, I can't help thinking that Rift-S is close to the perfect match - if only the sound was better (and it seems there're many quality problems, I blame Lenovo, lol). In fact gpu prices are still quite high, not sure enough has changed for getting more gpu power per $ since 2016-2017. That said, for the price I paid for my GTX 1080, which is 4 years old, you can now get the RTX 2070 Super - which is about 30 % faster. But 30 % faster isn't much when Index already adds 80 % more physical pixels - and Reverb G2 260 % more - compared to the CV1 (and using ss 2.0 I can find many games and apps where 2070 Super will struggle delivering 90 fps to the CV1). 

    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow (or too expensive)!  B)

    I don't blame Oculus Facebook for catering for a cheaper headset, but there's no reason in my eyes why they couldn't of cater for those with a higher end graphics card. I very much doubt those who play sims use a low end graphics card and the sim market is big enough. Companies sell wheels and flight sticks just for sim fans, so sticking in a couple of high res displays and creating a Rift S pro shouldn't have been a great deal.
    Doing this would have also catered for ever Pc user and not just those with lower end Pc's.

    I would love some high end catering from oculus. The problem is the pc users are just a drop in the bucket when compared to their goals. 
    You and me both.
    I have been waiting for that for a long time. Not holding my breath.
    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 |
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 5,873 Valuable Player
    inovator said:
    RedRizla said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    kevinw729 said:

    But for the Boneworks, HALO VR, and Half-Life:Alyx VR community... that wont be good enough!    




    A current limitation for making more high-res hmds is the current gpus. With the current mainstream gpus being like RTX 2060 and AMD 5600XT, I can't help thinking that Rift-S is close to the perfect match - if only the sound was better (and it seems there're many quality problems, I blame Lenovo, lol). In fact gpu prices are still quite high, not sure enough has changed for getting more gpu power per $ since 2016-2017. That said, for the price I paid for my GTX 1080, which is 4 years old, you can now get the RTX 2070 Super - which is about 30 % faster. But 30 % faster isn't much when Index already adds 80 % more physical pixels - and Reverb G2 260 % more - compared to the CV1 (and using ss 2.0 I can find many games and apps where 2070 Super will struggle delivering 90 fps to the CV1). 

    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow (or too expensive)!  B)

    I don't blame Oculus Facebook for catering for a cheaper headset, but there's no reason in my eyes why they couldn't of cater for those with a higher end graphics card. I very much doubt those who play sims use a low end graphics card and the sim market is big enough. Companies sell wheels and flight sticks just for sim fans, so sticking in a couple of high res displays and creating a Rift S pro shouldn't have been a great deal.
    Doing this would have also catered for ever Pc user and not just those with lower end Pc's.

    I would love some high end catering from oculus. The problem is the pc users are just a drop in the bucket when compared to their goals. 

    I think that's spot on - found some old sales expectations, like this one:


    More here: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-expects-to-ship-26-million-oculus-rifts-by-2017-2016-4?r=US&IR=T

    I think CV1 sold about 250k units in 2016 - far below the above expectations, and it was much worse in 2017, even when Oculus reduced the price about 50% for the bundle. Early sale numbers may have been a great disasppointment to Facebook/Oculus. 

    I think most agree that VR is awesome - so why doesn't it sell to the masses? That's the question I think Oculus is trying to solve - now by what seems like some kind of race to the bottom. I think if first Oculus can find the key to selling VR to the masses, then they may start to focus on different market segments (again). Maybe a $299 Quest 2 is key - we'll see. 
    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"
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 5,873 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    Btw, I do hope that we'll get even more focus on content - getting people to adopt VR isn't just about making cheap hmds - it's about content - and it seems something helped Oculus to reach new heights early this year - thanks to Alyx and maybe some Covid-19:

    "Despite pandemic-related hardware shortages, Facebook’s virtual reality business exploded at the start of 2020. The company revealed yesterday that it made $297 million in non-advertising revenue during the first quarter of 2020. That was “driven largely by sales of Oculus products,” rather than other products like Portal.

    The number is a full 80 percent higher than Facebook’s non-ad revenue in 2019’s first quarter, suggesting that the niche VR industry could be on the rise. But it also reflects a short window of incredible demand, which makes these staggering numbers a little harder to interpret."

    https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/30/21241995/facebook-q1-2020-earnings-oculus-rift-quest-sales-half-life-alyx-pandemic

    Focusing on Horizon may not be a bad thing - for normal persons a hmd may be like a car, and while we know that there're different cars, to persons not knowing much about VR a car might just be a car. But you need places to go - something to see - and just maybe that place for ordinary consumers not caring much about games could be Horizon. A place to meet relatives and friends without needing to travel or be physically present in the real world... A social platform - which may just be what Facebook wants from VR - and needs for the masses to adopt VR... Quest 2 + Horizon... 

    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"
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,925 Valuable Player
    Honestly, while the Rift-S wasn't for me because I had an Odyssey+ before it was announced, I think Facebook made a smart move and benefited greatly by having an affordable headset option for the release of Alyx, a true AAA title of a well known franchise. They probably would have sold a lot more if it wasn't for Covid shortages. I'm sure there's no remorse internally of going with the Rift-S over a CV2/high end option when the sales of it seem strong since it's been out of stock for months. I'm also sure Valve has no regrets either with their high end offering since there's still a several month long backorder for Index.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 5,336 Valuable Player
    It was an interesting writeup @RuneSR2 - but that Verge piece left a lot to be questioned.
    It did not factor in the purchases that the VR operation had made, it did not separate software, from hardware sales. And it also left an incredible hole in if it was quoting the complete amount, or a factor based on estimation. Obviously the Oculus hardware business has been better than CV1 days. The Rift-S and obviously the Quest has been a shot in the sales arm, and even with the limited production run (forced on Oculus by Facebook management, that came back to bite them (engineered scarcity)) ,they have seen a continued uptake for the at least the Quest. But it has not hit key goals why a "low cost" solution has been injected to turn this into a two horse race.

    But the Verge also forgot to factor in Lenovo into the pricing, and payments, as they receive a "undisclosed" percentage of Rift-S sales - and also gets paid for fabrication of Go and Quest (until recently). I get this piece was more a fluff piece to promote VR and Facebook, and skirted the detail research that others of us would have to carry out - but like a recent graph promoted by a certain news service that showed Oculus ahead of all headset sales, including the amassed Sony PSVR ranks!. A big pitch of salt is needed. Always interesting how some writers quickly forget the Oculus Go failure in  China, that had been planned to play a big part in hitting their sales numbers, and that many of the Rift-S sales were like for like replacements of CV1 sales as owners were "forced" to move away from the discontinued platform. 

    urdgfqqehbbb.png
    ** Second 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
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 7,366 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    RuneSR2 said:

    I think most agree that VR is awesome - so why doesn't it sell to the masses?
    I think there's a simple answer to that Question. You have to cater for a very large amount of people if you want to sell something to a large amount of people. A cheap Oculus Quest might sell to a large amount of people, but look what happened to a cheap VR Headset like the Oculus GO and to the cheap WMR VR headsets. They just didn't get very far unless I'm mistaken.
    This is just my opinion and it's just looking at the PC -VR side of things and not standalone VR. I think people have got too used to playing on anything from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor. I'm usually always asked the question when people have tried my Oculus CV1 VR headset -Why it so blurry? I have now made a habit of showing them the HP Reverb after showing the Oculus CV1 and they tell me how much better it looks.
    I think once VR doesn't look like it's a step back from a 1080p monitor that's when more PC users will buy into PC -VR. Lets see what happens with the HP G2 with it's higher resolution displays. Lets see if it makes a difference to the PC market because that's the only way to tell if the lack of sales is about visuals. There's only HP that are selling a VR headset with high resolution displays for relatively cheap price compared to the rest of the crowd, so lets just wait and see.
    I do think it's a great idea for Oculus Facebook to also try and keep getting more people into VR with a cheap standalone VR headset and I hope it does well. Nobody knows the resolution of this new standalone headset yet either.


  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,562 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    RuneSR2 said:

    I think most agree that VR is awesome - so why doesn't it sell to the masses?
    I think there's a simple answer to that Question. You have to cater for a very large amount of people if you want to sell something to a large amount of people. A cheap Oculus Quest might sell to a large amount of people, but look what happened to a cheap VR Headset like the Oculus GO and to the cheap WMR VR headsets. They just didn't get very far unless I'm mistaken.
    This is just my opinion and it's just looking at the PC -VR side of things and not standalone VR. I think people have got too used to playing on anything from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor. I'm usually always asked the question when people have tried my Oculus CV1 VR headset -Why it so blurry? I have now made a habit of showing them the HP Reverb after showing the Oculus CV1 and they tell me how much better it looks.
    I think once VR doesn't look like it's a step back from a at-least a 1080p monitor that's when more PC users will buy into PC -VR. Lets see what happens with the HP G2 with it's higher resolution displays. Lets see if it makes a difference to the PC market because the only way to tell if some of this is about visuals.
    I do think it's a great idea for Oculus Facebook to also try and keep getting more people into VR with a cheap standalone VR headset and I hope it does well. Nobody knows the resolution of this new standalone headset yet either.


    I think in addition to content you need what you mentioned very clear visuals and I also feel a much lighter headset is needed for the masses. Headsets are still very big and bulky for the masses to accept in my opinion. 
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 7,366 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    inovator said:
    RedRizla said:
    RuneSR2 said:

    I think most agree that VR is awesome - so why doesn't it sell to the masses?
    I think there's a simple answer to that Question. You have to cater for a very large amount of people if you want to sell something to a large amount of people. A cheap Oculus Quest might sell to a large amount of people, but look what happened to a cheap VR Headset like the Oculus GO and to the cheap WMR VR headsets. They just didn't get very far unless I'm mistaken.
    This is just my opinion and it's just looking at the PC -VR side of things and not standalone VR. I think people have got too used to playing on anything from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor. I'm usually always asked the question when people have tried my Oculus CV1 VR headset -Why it so blurry? I have now made a habit of showing them the HP Reverb after showing the Oculus CV1 and they tell me how much better it looks.
    I think once VR doesn't look like it's a step back from a at-least a 1080p monitor that's when more PC users will buy into PC -VR. Lets see what happens with the HP G2 with it's higher resolution displays. Lets see if it makes a difference to the PC market because the only way to tell if some of this is about visuals.
    I do think it's a great idea for Oculus Facebook to also try and keep getting more people into VR with a cheap standalone VR headset and I hope it does well. Nobody knows the resolution of this new standalone headset yet either.


    I think in addition to content you need what you mentioned very clear visuals and I also feel a much lighter headset is needed for the masses. Headsets are still very big and bulky for the masses to accept in my opinion. 

    Yeah, I see where you're coming from fella. Bulky headsets can put some people off just by looking at the size of the things, but the thing is bulky can sometimes be deceiving. What I mean by that is something can be bulky but still lightweight. When I look at the Pimax for example, I can't help thinking that thing must weight a ton. But funnily enough, I don't hear many people say that about it.
  • NunyabinezNunyabinez Posts: 76
    Hiro Protagonist
    I'm fairly confident that  Oculus is done with "Pure PCVR" headsets. Whatever they come out with will be a standalone/PC hybrid.

    The real question is how are they going to do this? Are they going to keep having an entry level and a high(er) end? I keep seeing incredible work being done by Facebook Research Labs on eye tracking, foveated rendering and varifocal displays. One of their head research guys says that they are working towards being able to pass a "Visual Turing Test." I can't believe that they would be investing in all this research to simply pump out a "Quest Lite."

    I've got a finger on the trigger to upgrade to a G2, but I really want to wait for these 2nd generation technologies. This announcement has made me pause on my purchase, but if they keep their roadmap this secret, my VR budget will be spent before they come out with a product and I won't be buying even if I want to. 
    i7 8700, 16GB, RTX 2080 TI, Rift CV1 | i5 4690K, 16GB, GTX 1660 TI, Rift CV1 | Quest
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,562 Valuable Player

    Nunyabinez said:
    I'm fairly confident that  Oculus is done with "Pure PCVR" headsets. Whatever they come out with will be a standalone/PC hybrid




    I have been saying that as well that any high end will be a hybrid.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,711 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    ...

    I'm sure it won't. To be frank, I have no idea if Oculus is going to focus on high-end PCVR for a long time - it certainly isn't my impression, but seems that Oculus likes to surprise us now and then. Also HP and Valve have set the bar rather high if Oculus wants to deliver a high-end solution priced below the Index.  
    .....
    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow!  B)

    Ha. yeah - blaming things is tight!
    Seriously, I think the progression in these areas have been amazing, and the reason HP and Valve can benefit from a educated market is down to much of what HTC and Oculus (and Sony) achieved first. I will not blame Lenovo - but am looking forward to their new high-end VR system with Varjo (which some still seem to be brushing under the carpet as not relevant).

    Its nice to see HP and Valve getting credit for pushing the bar so high - I noticed a trend in some postings to try and dismiss the high-end VR scene, and always trying to shoehorn Rift-S into these discussions. The Rift-S is a great little low-end headset at a price point that was deemed needed. But trying to claim its comparable to the new phase of high-end dev is a little blinkered. 

    I agree, Oculus liked their surprises, and hopefully the remaining management still carry over this ethos. It would be nice to see a brand new Rift (CV1) replacement with powerful performance launched next year as some have foretold - but I remember how long it took to see the replacement to the CV1, and we know how that turned out in reality (against the promised speculation). 


    There REALLY isn't a great deal of difference between the Rift S and the Valve Index in terms of resolution. You're looking at a 1440p headset compared to a 1600p headset.

    The major difference is the refresh rate and controllers, but how many people out there have a PC capable of powering a 1600p headset at 120Hz? Not many.

    Which leaves the controllers. For those coming from previously using the Rift there really isn't THAT much difference either because the Touch controllers have had finger tracking for YEARS.

    The Rift S is a high-end headset, particularly when you consider that you can supersample just as much as you can with the Rift at a higher resolution thanks to Oculus' decision regarding the refresh rate of the display.

    Is it AS high end as the Index or G2? No, of course not. But it's still a high end PC VR headset.
    "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
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,562 Valuable Player
    snowdog said:
    kevinw729 said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    ...

    I'm sure it won't. To be frank, I have no idea if Oculus is going to focus on high-end PCVR for a long time - it certainly isn't my impression, but seems that Oculus likes to surprise us now and then. Also HP and Valve have set the bar rather high if Oculus wants to deliver a high-end solution priced below the Index.  
    .....
    Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow!  B)

    Ha. yeah - blaming things is tight!
    Seriously, I think the progression in these areas have been amazing, and the reason HP and Valve can benefit from a educated market is down to much of what HTC and Oculus (and Sony) achieved first. I will not blame Lenovo - but am looking forward to their new high-end VR system with Varjo (which some still seem to be brushing under the carpet as not relevant).

    Its nice to see HP and Valve getting credit for pushing the bar so high - I noticed a trend in some postings to try and dismiss the high-end VR scene, and always trying to shoehorn Rift-S into these discussions. The Rift-S is a great little low-end headset at a price point that was deemed needed. But trying to claim its comparable to the new phase of high-end dev is a little blinkered. 

    I agree, Oculus liked their surprises, and hopefully the remaining management still carry over this ethos. It would be nice to see a brand new Rift (CV1) replacement with powerful performance launched next year as some have foretold - but I remember how long it took to see the replacement to the CV1, and we know how that turned out in reality (against the promised speculation). 


    There REALLY isn't a great deal of difference between the Rift S and the Valve Index in terms of resolution. You're looking at a 1440p headset compared to a 1600p headset.

    The major difference is the refresh rate and controllers, but how many people out there have a PC capable of powering a 1600p headset at 120Hz? Not many.

    Which leaves the controllers. For those coming from previously using the Rift there really isn't THAT much difference either because the Touch controllers have had finger tracking for YEARS.

    The Rift S is a high-end headset, particularly when you consider that you can supersample just as much as you can with the Rift at a higher resolution thanks to Oculus' decision regarding the refresh rate of the display.

    Is it AS high end as the Index or G2? No, of course not. But it's still a high end PC VR headset.
    Good points. Maybe we enthusiasts should say higher end.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,711 Valuable Player
    Yup. The only mid-range headsets that have been released so far are the WVR headsets, including the Reverb. I put them as mid-range for a few reasons: bad tracking, small sweetspot and lack of finger tracking for the controllers. You COULD call them high-end headsets if you ONLY use them to play sims though, but even then the small sweet spot is still going to be an issue.
    "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
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 7,366 Valuable Player
    edited July 25
    snowdog said:
    Yup. The only mid-range headsets that have been released so far are the WVR headsets, including the Reverb. I put them as mid-range for a few reasons: bad tracking, small sweetspot and lack of finger tracking for the controllers. You COULD call them high-end headsets if you ONLY use them to play sims though, but even then the small sweet spot is still going to be an issue.

    So does this mean the HP G2 will be a Higher end VR headset than the Rift S? Because it will have an ipd adjuster, higher resolution displays, Headphones, larger sweet spot with better lenses, and what looks like good tracking using 4 camera's plus a 90Hz refresh rate.
    The current Reverb is good for other stuff as well as sims, but currently you just have to make sure the controllers are in view of the camera's. I wouldn't say WMR has bad tracking, it just has limited tacking because it's using 2 camera's. The Rift S can't keep track of your controllers when they are behind your back for long, but that doesn't mean the Rift S has bad tracking.
Sign In or Register to comment.