cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Oculus Rift vs HTC Vive + Pimax + StarVR

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
Here are the headsets that the Oculus Rift is NOT competing with:
  • Oculus Quest
  • Oculus GO
  • GearVR
I've seen the question posed (repeatedly) on multiple sites that the potential success of Oculus Quest will somehow harm the Oculus Rift. The Rift is in a PC market, Quest is in a Mobile-Console Market (it has a Snapdragon processor with an Android OS). The advances that GO and Quest can make to visual immersion are limited (e.g. correcting Chromatic Abberation) due to the lack of powerful processors combined with a dedicated GPU.
If Oculus Quest and Oculus GO managed to sell 1-billion units each while the Rift remains less than 10-million... this is NOT bad for the Rift. Because the Rift is competing with other PC-based VR units that are trying to become leaders in PC-based Virtual Reality, not Mobile- or Console-based VR.

HTC Vive
They are still fresh in to launching their updated VivePort platform and the Vive Pro is technically better than the Rift. HTC has spent this year giving lectures about their future in VR which includes being able to read "brain waves."
http://www.alphr.com/virtual-reality/1006556/this-htc-vive-prototype-lets-you-play-vr-games-using-br...

Pimax
For those who have been following along Pimax's success... they are on the verge of releasing the 5K-Plus with plans for the 8K-X (native 4K resolution) with an increased FOV that is superior to the Rift. And by piggy-backing off of the Vive's successful Tracking setup, we have a Kickstarter that could "potentially" outshine the Rift in a few short months.
https://www.roadtovr.com/pimax-8k-to-being-shipping-by-months-end-pimax-5k-plus-announced/

StarVR
This headset is marketed towards "visionaries" and totes itself as being "dedicated to the innovation of professional virtual reality solutions, with a focus on high-end enterprise applications and location-based entertainment." StarVR has competitive technology today such as increased FoV and eye-tracking. This is probably the Rift's biggest competitor today.
https://www.starvr.com/products/


Talks of a Gen 2 Rift should entail the potential features that it "needs" to have in order to compete with the Vive, Pimax, and StarVR, and to some extend... Windows Mixed Reality. As well as any other contenders for PC-based VR. Let's say for a moment that the success of GO and Quest does somehow negatively impact the Rift (because Facebook and Oculus suddenly forget who their real competition is in this hypothetical), then organization's like HTC, Pimax, and StarVR will simply take center stage as PCVR leaders.

The real question we need to ask ourselves is this: Will Oculus Quest and Oculus GO have a meaningful impact on PCVR competitors like HTC, Pimax, StarVR?

I don't have an answer to that myself. However, I do know that GO and Quest would do more harm to Facebook-Oculus competitors before it would harm the Rift.
45 REPLIES 45

Techy111
MVP
MVP
Agreed mate, excellent point. 
A PC with lots of gadgets inside and a thing to see in 3D that you put on your head.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Zenbane said:


snowdog said:

I wouldn't include the StarVR headset as competition for ANY headset in the home consumer space. We don't know exactly how expensive it's going to be but it wouldn't surprise me if it's over 3 grand to buy. They'll probably sell 4 or 5 of the things to the great unwashed like us lol

The Pimax is certainly a contender, I'm going to buy one if we have to wait until 2022 for the CV2.



I sense a slight bias. You are considering Pimax a contender because you are planning on buying one. However, I could make an argument that they are not a contender because they have no track record of success: their Gen 1 was a failure and their Gen 2 is a Kickstarter project that didn't achieve its promised goals. Arguments can be made both ways, but on paper StarVR is most certainly the stronger product. I don't consider price relevant in this discussion. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it isn't good. Check out Lamborghini's as a prime example.




On paper, as far as specs goes, it is indeed a stronger product. But it isn't going to be competition for the other headsets. Of course price is relevant. If it's too expensive then nobody will buy the thing. It remains to be seen whether the Pimax headsets are going to be competition for the same reason too. That's why I said it's a contender. If Pimax have the things costing over a grand for the full bundle then they won't sell that many and will be outsold by Rifts and Vives. If, on the other hand, they sell for under 800 for the full bundle then they'll shift a fair few.

Yes, their '4K' headset was a flop, but going by feedback that we've heard so far they appear to have learnt some very important lessons from their previous mistake.

@Zenbane, for me,  I think I'm discounting other PC VR headsets for various reasons which are probably independent of Quest.

Pimax is both too expensive when taking into account having to buy the whole kit and start over, and too many questions still over drivability and performance.

I haven't been following StarVR tbh so I shouldnt pre-judge that one, but I'm guessing it has the same issues for me as does the Pimax, probably more so.

So bottom line for me is that thus far Rift is what's stopping me buying any other PC VR headset and my wallet, and the unrealistic performance requirements.

Quest will stop me buying any other stand-alone... unlless something amazing turns up! ...and my favourite PC VR games will stop me abandoning PC VR any time soon.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

snowdog said:
On paper, as far as specs goes, it is indeed a stronger product. But it isn't going to be competition for the other headsets.


I disagree, "The StarVR One comes with SteamVR Tracking 2.0." SteamVR is obviously a consumer platform built for gaming. Sure their target market is the commercial sector, but theoretically so was the Vive Pro. That didn't stop it from being purchased by consumers so that they could enjoy games like Skyrim VR with it.


snowdog said:
 Of course price is relevant. If it's too expensive then nobody will buy the thing. It remains to be seen whether the Pimax headsets are going to be competition for the same reason too.


You're contradicting yourself. The Pimax 8K Kickstarter raised over 4-million dollars with just under 6,000 backers. Do the Math on that. If it wasn't for a niche number of consumers willing to spend excessive amounts of money on a single VR HMD, then the Pimax 8K Kickstarter never would have happened and you wouldn't be able to talk about your plans to invest in one lol

Price aint a factor; your views on the Pimax 8K prove that, since the only reason you can even look favorably on the Pimax is because of those out there who know that price isn't a factor.


Yes, their '4K' headset was a flop, but going by feedback that we've
heard so far they appear to have learnt some very important lessons from
their previous mistake.


Learning lessons doesn't mean anything when we're talking about a Kickstarter that doesn't achieve its goals.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP


@Zenbane, for me,  I think I'm discounting other PC VR headsets for various reasons which are probably independent of Quest.

Pimax is both too expensive when taking into account having to buy the whole kit and start over, and too many questions still over drivability and performance.

I haven't been following StarVR tbh so I shouldnt pre-judge that one, but I'm guessing it has the same issues for me as does the Pimax, probably more so.

So bottom line for me is that thus far Rift is what's stopping me buying any other PC VR headset and my wallet, and the unrealistic performance requirements.

Quest will stop me buying any other stand-alone... unlless something amazing turns up! ...and my favourite PC VR games will stop me abandoning PC VR any time soon.



Ah yes, that makes sense! I started paying attention to StarVR after reading several Facebook conversations. Then I followed some reddit posts and the only real complaint people have about StarVR is that they are targeting Enterprise instead of Consumer, which of course means there could be an 'exceptionally' high price. Likely somewhere between $4,000 and $6,000.

Although even a price point of $2,000 just for the HMD would still be considered high.

Quest's platform is still very much mobile, and I can't imagine it ever getting good enough to warrant me stopping my Rift investments. The PCVR market is being continuously moved forward by HTC and now Starbreeze (StarVR) in ways that Quest alone simply can't keep up with. I will rely on Rift to hold up its competitive edge against the main PCVR competitors.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
In no particular order, the rest of the rest:

- HTC Vive Focus
- Pimax 8K
- Pimax 5K
- LG
- StarVR
- VRingeering
- Samsung Odyssey
- Acer
- HP
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

Anonymous
Not applicable
There is no way the Quest could even think about running the gaming I spend well over 90% of my VR time in. 
For me it is PC-VR or nothing. Now that is not to say I would not absolutely pick up a Quest out of curiosity and maybe a little lower level gaming on some occasions, but PC-VR is what I absolutely have the most interest in.

And still feeling pretty dejected over the lack of information at OC5 from Oculus regarding a successor to the Rift. Instead we are left to conjecture and guessing what may or may not come and in what time frame that may or may not be. Trying to read between the lines on statements that were made that might possibly contain a hint. And here I was thinking that Nvidia included those new Virtual Link ports in their 20x series of cards just released looked very promising for a next gen PC-VR product from Oculus before too long.

HTC Vive Pro - no, cost versus value from what I have read is not there. Plus some users replacing the lenses for a better picture with Gear VR lenses. No thanks.
Pimax - Never much cared for the way they market their products, not at all. Will see how things look with them when actual consumers have product in hand playing the games I spend most of my time in. I know of a few Kickstarter guys waiting on devices that play the same games I do mostly. I don't have much feel good about it yet though.
StarVR - If they offered a home consumer version with some of the advancements sounds like they are making with their enterprise offering, at a reasonable level of pricing and fairly soon, I would strongly consider it.

So in the meantime I continue to use and enjoy very much my Rift on a daily basis, but will continue to hope for some advancements ( namely resolution and FOV) that someone can bring to the table sooner than sounds like Oculus will be willing to. That can actually run the games I play at reasonable enough performance and give a great experience in. Otherwise I will just keep on awaiting and using my Rift.

Personally, I think Oculus is holding off too long and trying to add too much to a next gen PC-VR device. They are positioning their self well with the mobile and stand alone market, they may be letting some of the PC-VR market eventually slip through their hands.

Anonymous
Not applicable
1) VR as a technology is demanding on current hardware
- A) But is it demanding because of current software/hardware or is it demanding because we just haven't figure out a good way to render said VR both in terms of software/hardware?

2) When comparing said headsets - the normal issues that pop up are:
-A) No one wants to see another HTC Pro - because of price and hardware requirements $1k+ price tags are out the door
-B) Pimax 8k/x isn't worth because of hardware requirements and LCD technology (commented by early Pimax users)
-C) Pimax 5k+ is worth because it is a step up from current headsets both in terms of FOV and Res (commented by early Pimax users)
-D) Price is still floating in the air for Pimax after the kickstarter's backers get their headsets
-E) WMR devices - tracking isn't as good as HTC or Oculus tracking along with other problems such as resolution
-F) 1) - Computer hardware costly, bulky, and over all VR demands too much from it
-G) Price is still too high for a lot of people - but how low do we go before we say it's not for you for this gen or next?
-H) VR is limited to only home use and will not be seen in public or work environment 3)
-I) VR is still not as comfortable as sitting in front of a monitor
-J) VR doesn't allow easy in and out for quick flashes to content that other wises is easier to see on a monitor/tv

3) VR seen as only media, games, and possible training devices, but otherwise lock to home use
-A) VR hasn't been shown to be more and most of that is cause by limits of 1)
-B) What can VR do to replace current pancake software and allow a smooth experiences that allows a cross over for the between stuff
-C) Everyone wants a face - not a brick strap to their face
-D) 2-G) Unless it offers at the same cost as current hardware/monitors - they won't uptake to scale current low cost hardware can do now

4) VR just isn't there yet for what people want
-A) A lot of comments from here, road to vr, and other tech sites would love to get into VR, but don't see what they want in VR yet in the core specs of higher resolution (4k per eye at least), 120+ FOV, and beter lens
-B) Some of those though just skip gen 1 in hopes that gen 2 would have some of the current bugs, software, and techniques figure out or fix for the next release.
-C) Some are waiting for a true next generation device that is a leap forward of current/last gen offer. This would include advanaces outside of the core specs such as in ET/FOVR, VF, body tracking, etc that also includes technology that acts double for core values such as flat lenses to reduce weight, small sizes, and increase visual quality. 

5) New problems and where are we at?
-A) As we continue to increase core specs we are finding out new problems that we didn't know was there before and no one seems to be talking about these issues and how we can overcome them yet. Pimax issues with higher FOV of wrapping on the edges is a good example of this stuff.
-B) We need more transparency on technology that we like to see and what may be to come. OC5 showed a glimpse into some of that - but more talks like these helps inform users on what is going on as well.

6) Hardware cost is still very high
-A) Screen technology at current  is costing 2x because of having two eyes instead of one. There isn't currently a real VR screen that is design around the idea of splitting the pixels on one panel yet (some pixels are lost in between the eyes).
-B) New technology into screens cost a lot to create  and is double pounded on the fact you need two of them to get per eye to eye and not lose pixels in the middle.
-C) 

7) VR content creation tools (hardware and software)
-A) Software 
-B) Hardware
-C) Settings
-D) Scale over time

Some of this - is going to be real limits to hit that one billion people and others are just facts of the nature of the beat at large. A work in progress btw - It's long o.o;

RedRizla
Honored Visionary
@Mradr - I'm going to have to keep reading your post over and over again for a few months. By the time I get to the end of that list, I've already forgotten the things at the start of the list. I'll post a reply when I can take it all in j/k 😄

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
^^
Glad it wasn't just me!
:'(