08-13-2016 08:17 AM - edited 10-03-2021 03:39 AM
08-15-2016 04:52 AM
Expt626 said:
Mradr said:
Expt626 said:
@fawal_1997
thanks for the effort, not that I don't trust you. I just wish Oculus could provide actual support for offline installers rather than we have to jump through so many hoops to get this feature. Isnt it to their benefit to get mass market adoption asap? Why alienate users that require a offline installer feature (which was available till runtime 0.8)?
I don't think mass market adoption is ready yet. This technology is soo "new" that only the top 10% has any real access to the hardware at even given time. Give it another 1 or so years and everything should be work out by then. Right now we're just seeing growing pains of software issues. Lets be honest - it took steam close to 4 years to get anything right.
I bought my first DK1 in 2013, it has been 3 years afaik. If Oculus is not aiming for mass market adoption now then I seriously don't how they going to survive in the long run. They did name their latest Rift CV1 not DK3. I don't really care about Oculus Home, the Rift hardware itself seem ready for mass market adoption to me.
08-15-2016 05:09 AM
08-15-2016 05:22 AM
Expt626 said:
Mradr said:
Expt626 said:
@fawal_1997
thanks for the effort, not that I don't trust you. I just wish Oculus could provide actual support for offline installers rather than we have to jump through so many hoops to get this feature. Isnt it to their benefit to get mass market adoption asap? Why alienate users that require a offline installer feature (which was available till runtime 0.8)?
I don't think mass market adoption is ready yet. This technology is soo "new" that only the top 10% has any real access to the hardware at even given time. Give it another 1 or so years and everything should be work out by then. Right now we're just seeing growing pains of software issues. Lets be honest - it took steam close to 4 years to get anything right.
I bought my first DK1 in 2013, it has been 3 years afaik. If Oculus is not aiming for mass market adoption now then I seriously don't how they going to survive in the long run. They did name their latest Rift CV1 not DK3. I don't really care about Oculus Home, the Rift hardware itself seem ready for mass market adoption to me.
08-15-2016 10:25 AM
08-15-2016 10:52 AM
08-15-2016 11:37 PM
Mradr said:
Expt626 said:
Mradr said:
Expt626 said:
@fawal_1997
thanks for the effort, not that I don't trust you. I just wish Oculus could provide actual support for offline installers rather than we have to jump through so many hoops to get this feature. Isnt it to their benefit to get mass market adoption asap? Why alienate users that require a offline installer feature (which was available till runtime 0.8)?
I don't think mass market adoption is ready yet. This technology is soo "new" that only the top 10% has any real access to the hardware at even given time. Give it another 1 or so years and everything should be work out by then. Right now we're just seeing growing pains of software issues. Lets be honest - it took steam close to 4 years to get anything right.
I bought my first DK1 in 2013, it has been 3 years afaik. If Oculus is not aiming for mass market adoption now then I seriously don't how they going to survive in the long run. They did name their latest Rift CV1 not DK3. I don't really care about Oculus Home, the Rift hardware itself seem ready for mass market adoption to me.
There is a differences in mass market adoption and moving towards mass market adoption. Right now, as I said, CV1 only can work on the top 10%. DK2 and DK1 are just an idea on how it'll work that made CV1. A company will go through many of them just as we saw with crystal cove. Until they can make a device that can run on at least 40% of the market they wont have mass market adoption for another 2 years.
They are moving toward it though, but it's not their device that has to play catch up. It's the total computer market that has to. Customers are not buying graphic cards like they once used to. They pretty much now game off their Intel CPU because it's more than enough now for what they want to use. Now I don't mean 3D gaming, but Internet browsing and software use.
As for the price/cost - it doesn't really matter, but the hardware to run VR has to come down just a bit for more for "mass" adoption rate. Until that happens - we're just stuck at the top 10% and that's not even near a "massive" adoption rate, but it is enough for VR to grow and move towards "mass" adoption rate.
08-16-2016 12:24 AM
08-16-2016 02:17 AM
Expt626 said:
Mradr said:
Expt626 said:
Mradr said:
Expt626 said:
@fawal_1997
thanks for the effort, not that I don't trust you. I just wish Oculus could provide actual support for offline installers rather than we have to jump through so many hoops to get this feature. Isnt it to their benefit to get mass market adoption asap? Why alienate users that require a offline installer feature (which was available till runtime 0.8)?
I don't think mass market adoption is ready yet. This technology is soo "new" that only the top 10% has any real access to the hardware at even given time. Give it another 1 or so years and everything should be work out by then. Right now we're just seeing growing pains of software issues. Lets be honest - it took steam close to 4 years to get anything right.
I bought my first DK1 in 2013, it has been 3 years afaik. If Oculus is not aiming for mass market adoption now then I seriously don't how they going to survive in the long run. They did name their latest Rift CV1 not DK3. I don't really care about Oculus Home, the Rift hardware itself seem ready for mass market adoption to me.
There is a differences in mass market adoption and moving towards mass market adoption. Right now, as I said, CV1 only can work on the top 10%. DK2 and DK1 are just an idea on how it'll work that made CV1. A company will go through many of them just as we saw with crystal cove. Until they can make a device that can run on at least 40% of the market they wont have mass market adoption for another 2 years.
They are moving toward it though, but it's not their device that has to play catch up. It's the total computer market that has to. Customers are not buying graphic cards like they once used to. They pretty much now game off their Intel CPU because it's more than enough now for what they want to use. Now I don't mean 3D gaming, but Internet browsing and software use.
As for the price/cost - it doesn't really matter, but the hardware to run VR has to come down just a bit for more for "mass" adoption rate. Until that happens - we're just stuck at the top 10% and that's not even near a "massive" adoption rate, but it is enough for VR to grow and move towards "mass" adoption rate.
*face plamed* I'm pretty sure no company will ever declare their product is ready for mass market adoption after they conquer the entire market. I believe Oculus was planning for mass market adoption with CV1, of course the outcome is anyone's guess.
Please spare me the nitty gritty definitions and figures plucked from the sky, if Oculus deem it fit to call their rift "Consumer Version 1", it is ready for mass market adoption. So back to my point, why is Oculus making decisions that hinder their goal to mass market adoption? Truly puzzling... @.@
08-16-2016 04:47 AM
danknugz said:
How big is the runtime like 20 megs? Why would Even bother unless you're on dial up
10-28-2016 04:41 AM