cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Brace yourselves: Official Rift-S reveal is coming

Zenbane
MVP
MVP


Oculus Rift S PC VR Headset Set For GDC 2019 Reveal

An email sent to Oculus developers by Facebook suggests ‘Rift S’ will be formally revealed at GDC 2019.

UploadVR confirmed with multiple people the email mentions ‘Rift S’ alongside ‘Oculus Go’ and ‘Oculus Quest’. This suggests we should expect a formal announcement in the near future of the PC-based VR headset succeeding Oculus Rift.


And this all begins THIS MONDAY. Hopefully the rumor-mill will prove true this time.

Also note that Oculus is scheduled to be involved in at least 9 different sessions; you can get the full list of GDC here:

https://schedule.gdconf.com/

Down the Rabbit Hole with Oculus Quest (Presented by Oculus)
https://schedule.gdconf.com/session/down-the-rabbit-hole-with-oculus-quest-presented-by-oculus/86560...

Creating Realistic Acoustics with Oculus Audio Propagation (Presented by Oculus)
https://schedule.gdconf.com/session/creating-realistic-acoustics-with-oculus-audio-propagation-prese...


1,078 REPLIES 1,078

ShocksVR
Superstar

RedRizla said:

Am I missing something here? Why are some people thinking the Rift S could be expensive? My thinking is the Rift S is like an Oculus Quest, but it uses PC hardware instead. How could that make it more expensive then Oculus Quest when an Oculus Quest needs a snapdragon processor and the Rift S doesn't? Please tell me if I'm missing something here in regards to pricing? If eye tracking is added that could increase the price, but I can't think of anything else that would make it more expensive then Oculus Quest. Infact it should be cheaper then Oculus Quest given it will be using PC hardware.


It won't be expensive.

The days of Oculus headed by Brenden Iribe are gone; and it's a good thing. Expensive hardware made by a small company (prone to design flaws) are gone. 
Now are the days of an affordable consumer headset with a multibillion dollar research and development arm backing it.


i7-7700k, Zotac RTX 3080 AMP Holo (10G), QuestPro, Quest 2
Previous: Oculus GO, Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale, Oculus Rift S

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
Iribe wanted to "race to the top" but the problem was his vantage point: He was racing to the top if a tiny hill, littered with unpurchased WMR headsets, Pimax's broken HMD's, and HTC's bankruptcy papers.

The two biggest talked about games for "high-end PCVR" remain games that were made for vanilla pancake gaming: Elite Dangers, Skyrim. Because of this, there's just no reason for a smart company like Oculus or Facebook to spend excess resources trying to kick out a product that will cost consumers upwards of $1000 just for the headset... just to play the same damn games that have been out for so many years.

It doesn't matter what the platform is - mobile, console, pc, vr, ar - at the end of the day: software is king. And that's what we keep getting from the Oculus line-of-business, killer software.
  • GO has exclusive live events (concerts, sports)
  • Quest has the exclusive Darth Vader trilogy
  • Rift has exclusives made-for-PCVR award winning titles, like Lone Echo
Not to mention the superior hand-controllers and finger tracking that have yet to be matched in terms of design, comfort, and overall execution by any other competitor in the industry.

Affordability and leading edge. It's the best of both worlds. With the exception of the Vive Pro (which I have come to like and respect over time), all other HMD's are simply a non-factor.

davejohnblack
Protege
I think people might be over estimating how much it saves to remove the snapdragon 835... a quick search suggests $40 plus heatsink and ram, then they have to replace it with something less powerful to coordinate the sensors (If not perform image processing)...

RedRizla
Honored Visionary


I think people might be over estimating how much it saves to remove the snapdragon 835... a quick search suggests $40 plus heatsink and ram, then they have to replace it with something less powerful to coordinate the sensors (If not perform image processing)...



Well if that's the case it certainly doesn't make it worth $600, which is the post I was mainly responding to. For $600 it would need to have a lot more then what Oculus Quest offers. Unless of course the the sensors you talk about come in at $250.

Edit: I was basically responding to a post where some said it would be worth $600 without even knowing what we are getting. I'm thinking it will have similar specs to Oculus Quest, which should keep it around the same price or cheaper. But we shall see soon enough.

davejohnblack
Protege

RedRizla said:



I think people might be over estimating how much it saves to remove the snapdragon 835... a quick search suggests $40 plus heatsink and ram, then they have to replace it with something less powerful to coordinate the sensors (If not perform image processing)...



Well if that's the case it certainly doesn't make it worth $600, which is the post I was mainly responding to. For $600 it would need to have a lot more then what Oculus Quest offers. Unless of course the the sensors you talk about come in at $250.

Efit: I was basically responding to a post where some said it would be worth $600 without even knowing what we are getting.


By sensors, i meant the cameras, accelerometers etc which are built into the quest(etc) to track it's position.

Indeed for $600 I would expect a few decent upgrades...

David

Anonymous
Not applicable
The problem and some of the reason of the kick back is there are two different markets wanting access/share of Oculus/Facebook resources to make a product for their wants and needs. You have the bleed edge guys that wants something at around 600-400$ while the rest of the market wants something in the 200-300$ range. Both have their pros and cons when it comes to business and keeping customers happy. Both will be equally right in their point of view as far as what Oculus should do with the Rift S.

There will be some back lash over one over the other side of the market to whoever they choose to go with in terms of price, new features, and upgrades.

With that said - if you are the camp for the 600-400 then you are wanting more in terms of what the PC can do. That means higher resolution and a bump in FOV that still at least 50% better PPD over current generation 1 headsets. More if they can get eye tracking into the device.

While the other side wants that too - they are just not wanting to spend the money on that half meaning if it isn't in a price range - then they are not even considering it for a while. The lower price really limits what can happen though. This means maybe Rift S losses current tracking ability with the external tracking to save worker cost of having to place them in there in the first place resulting in less complexity and a lower price point. New technology is usually cut as well unless it's coming from another product line already, so stuff like eye tracking is usually the first to be cut.

This can be a topic of its own really.

I will say software in king - but without good hardware support it - software can only do so much. At some point - the river just needs to be bigger if they wish to push more water down stream. If VR can't stand out more in terms of what it can provide outside of gaming too - it'll have a slow progression. For example, if the headset is only slowly progressing - then it'll take another 2-3 years before the rift finally hits readable text inside the headset. This means people that want to use VR as another monitor will have to again wait many more years to finally be able to do that resulting in less over all software sells and hardware sells - again an example. There are other facts as well at play with this example that have as much of a impact to the over all user experiences as the resolution and lenses have such as taking off and on the head set.

We should know more by GDC what they aim for either way it sounds like from those rumors and other sources coming up with the same information.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

Mradr said:
I will say software in king - but without good hardware support it - software can only do so much. At some point - the river just needs to be bigger if they wish to push more water down stream. .




As of today, there isn't enough software in the VR ecosystem to warrant improved hardware. Which is why I've always joked about the price of the Pimax 5K/8K and even the Vive Pro... when all people end up doing is playing old games like Elite Dangerous and Skyrim.

Yes software can "only do so much" and one of the things it does is flood a market and drive hardware innovation forward.
Just look at what Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Cryptomining has done for the evolution of GPUs.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Zenbane said:
As of today, there isn't enough software in the VR ecosystem to warrant improved hardware. 



I like to feel like that might be a chicken and a egg problem than a software or hardware problem. Like I said - both markets have pros and cons - the biggest pro for a cheaper price headset is that it is going to bring in a ton more people and this results in a larger user base software designers will want to cater to to make their software and games for meaning they will put more time, money, and resources into making their product number one and a better over all user experience.

On the flip side for hardware and software - you sure do need software that can push today's hardware - but usually software comes second as you need the hardware first out there so software devs knows what to program for. Using my text readability example - if the hardware can't already provide a good enough focal point viewing - software can't show off how clear the resolution or lenses are. Another example for gaming, is if you don't have eye tracking hardware - you can't improve lower end specs to allow lower end hardware access to VR and there for software will not be working out the details on how FOVA should work or ways to improve it.

It's all a balance act and trade offs. I do agree both view points either way are correct and have a impact on what a customer is looking for at the end of the day. Everyone is just different and as a result - are in the market for different reasons. 

RedRizla
Honored Visionary
I believe software is king to success and also cheaper hardware. I wonder how many people are going to rush out and buy an 8k television with no content. If you want to sell a product to millions of people and not just to the rich people of this world, then you have to create a product that people can afford. I think Oculus is looking to do what @Zenbane and @ShocksOculus have said. 

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

Mradr said:


Zenbane said:
As of today, there isn't enough software in the VR ecosystem to warrant improved hardware. 



I like to feel like that might be a chicken and a egg problem than a software or hardware problem.

Historically, it's not a problem but a direct observation. When the computer first hit consumers hands, Word Processors were the driving force. The need was there first, from the mass amount of Data Entry workers world-wide. Software has always driven hardware.

but usually software comes second as you need the hardware first out there so software devs knows what to program for.

This is 100% false if we're going by factual human history. The software comes first, and drives hardware innovation forward. Software first came in the form of Algorithms which go back to 300 BCE.

And some further history on how Software emerged before Hardware:

Charles
Babbage invented the “Analytical Engine” (a computer made out of gear
wheels and levers and stuff) - that would have been the “first computer”
during Victorian times.

Ada
Lovelace (a rich countess with a fondness for math and science -
daughter of the poet Byron) took it upon herself to write a description
of the machine - and included a program that she (probably) wrote in her
description.

Since
Babbage never did finish building the Analytical Engine - Ada’s
software existed for almost 100 years before the first working computers
came along.


Software has always come first, and it drove the need for hardware. History and facts reveal this without question. VR is no different.