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

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:

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. 


True, but then you progress more slowly - it's also one of the downside of a low price market. The jump between products is longer and reach jump of specs is a lot lower meaning there isn't anything that will show off eye candy that some people enjoy or dream about getting later on. I mean Crysis did do one thing - it require and even push top end customers to bite into higher end cards than what mainstream was aiming for.

Mainstream only wants 1080p-1440p right now and 60FPS for around 200-400$. Your higher end customers want 4k and 144FPS for around 400-800$. 

MowTin
Expert Trustee

Zenbane said:


when all people end up doing is playing old games like Elite Dangerous and Skyrim.



You underestimate these old games. Elite Dangerous is not "an old game." It's not even finished. It's always growing and expanding. They still haven't delivered everything they promised in the kickstarter. 

And there are other "old games" like Asseto Corsa and maybe Project Cars 2 which are sims. Sims don't get old. People play them for years and years. The sim gamer space is VR's greatest strength. 

And many of us, you may disagree, feel that Skyrim VR is the best VR game. Skyrim VR helped sell a lot of headsets. 

The VR market is just not big enough to support AAA VR from the ground up games. It's better to mod old and new pancake games properly. That way the buyer feels he has a better platform to play existing games rather than playing a bunch of student game projects on a new platform. 
i7 9700k 3090 rtx   CV1, Rift-S, Index, G2

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

Mradr said:


RedRizla said:

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. 


True, but then you progress more slowly - it's also one of the downside of a low price market. The jump between products is longer and reach jump of specs is a lot lower meaning there isn't anything that will show off eye candy that some people enjoy or dream about getting later on. I mean Crysis did do one thing - it require and even push top end customers to bite into higher end cards than what mainstream was aiming for.


That doesn't make sense. Software is what allows things to progress more quickly. Computer hardware and mobile devices are constantly upgrading incrementally to keep up with the software demands.

You have things backwards. If hardware innovation came first, then everything would move more slowly. Information Technology is the fastest moving Industry in human history; and it's an industry that began with Software first.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Zenbane said:


Mradr said:


RedRizla said:

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. 


True, but then you progress more slowly - it's also one of the downside of a low price market. The jump between products is longer and reach jump of specs is a lot lower meaning there isn't anything that will show off eye candy that some people enjoy or dream about getting later on. I mean Crysis did do one thing - it require and even push top end customers to bite into higher end cards than what mainstream was aiming for.


That doesn't make sense. Software is what allows things to progress more quickly. Computer hardware and mobile devices are constantly upgrading incrementally to keep up with the software demands.

You have things backwards. If hardware innovation came first, then everything would move more slowly. Information Technology is the fastest moving Industry in human history; and it's an industry that began with Software first.


Hardware has to come first before software can move faster though. Sure software can request to be faster - but it's not going to make it self faster if there isnt a way to improve it self anymore. Compression can help - but if your ping times between packets are large - then you are going to have huge spikes of communication delays.

I mean look at another prime example of hardware first - the RTX line of cards or even Direct X12. You can't run any of the Direct x12 features unless your hardware already supports the technology and API calls in the first place. RTX on the other hand needs something out there first so devs can work on software to use RT cores and create software around that.

All software does is help drive the need for stronger hardware - hardware still drives the software to get that point though. One side can get there faster than the other - but the other still requires each other to perform its task with in a reasonable amount of time. Software is arguably is still more important than hardware - but hardware still is what allows software to do some amazing things with it self.

Let me ask this: Would you rather play at 1080p at 120FPS or 4k at 60FPS with a monitor that can do either ore but limited to 60 FPS even if they are both price the same?

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

MowTin said:
You underestimate these old games.

Possibly. Or maybe I'm just not beyond the appeal of games that entail mass redundancy.

Elite Dangerous is not "an old game."
I've owned Elite Dangerous since 2016. The game was released in 2014, it's nearly half a decade old.

It's not even finished. It's always growing and expanding. They still
haven't delivered everything they promised in the kickstarter.

Add-ons don't counter-act the process of aging. Getting a new haircut, for example, doesn't suddenly make a person young. And omg, if failing to deliver a Kickstarter promise somehow keeps a game "fresh and new," then the world is screwed.


And there are other "old games" like Asseto Corsa and maybe Project Cars
2 which are sims. Sims don't get old. People play them for years and
years. The sim gamer space is VR's greatest strength.
Yes, they are old games. They are often referred to as "classics." The "feeling" may never get old, but the software itself is still old. There seems to be some confusion here about how time and aging works.

And many of us, you may disagree, feel that Skyrim VR is the best VR game. Skyrim VR helped sell a lot of headsets.

Beat Saber outsold Skyrim, and has helped sell more headsets. Beat Saber is literally used at VR marketing events and at VR Arcades.


The VR market is just not big enough to support AAA VR from the ground
up games. It's better to mod old and new pancake games properly.

I agree that Ports are needed from a financial/sales perspective. The only reason AAA VR titles haven't arrived yet is because it takes 3-5 years to develop and this April we are barely hitting the 3 year mark of the release of the Rift and Vive CV1. Ports are only needed to "buy more time."


That way the buyer feels he has a better platform to play existing games
rather than playing a bunch of student game projects on a new
platform. 

Yes, I agree that VR Ports are an effective visage.

dtrjones
Protege

Zenbane said:

I'm really hoping for:
  1. Increased FoV
  2. Reduced Screen Door
  3. Reduced God Rays
  4. Improved Black Levels
  5. Eye Tracking


Hello we have another brendan iribe here LOL! I think it's just a refresh mate, unlikely to get an increased fov or eye tracking. I think a teathered quest is your best comparison and that should keep the price down..

dtrjones
Protege

Wildt said:

All naive wishes aside my gut tells me its a Wired Quest without the SoC, at an even cheaper price. 


Pretty much yes. we knew that was coming when the other guy left. You'll have to wait a little longer for a next gen Rift. I'm still excited and I'm almost certain to buy this anyway!

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

Mradr said:
Hardware has to come first before software can move faster though.


Again... history dictates otherwise. This isn't about opinions or theory, this is about an observable truth. Software literally came first, and pushed hardware innovation forward. Software creates the need to "move faster."


Sure software can request to be faster - but it's not going to make it
self faster if there isnt a way to improve it self anymore.

True, and that is when Hardware comes in secondary to push the industry forward. But you just described the exact process where Software comes first, Hardware second. Which is the literal opposite of your initial argument that claimed Software comes second.


I mean look at another prime example of hardware first - the RTX line of cards or even Direct X12.

That's not "hardware first." Graphic cards were birthed due to the demand created by Software. Software came first:

The first computer graphic to be used on a computer was in the 1940s, when the Whirlwind I was developed for the U.S. Navy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Whirlwind was a flight simulator that could locate objects.
https://www.techwalla.com/articles/who-invented-the-graphics-card

You like to argue personal theory when it comes to technology; yet technology is driven by and reflects a recorded history which does contradict your personal theory.


All software does is help drive the need for stronger hardware

Correct.

hardware still drives the software to get that point though.

Incorrect.


Let me ask this: Would you rather play at 1080p at 120FPS or 4k at 60FPS
with a monitor that can do either ore but limited to 60 FPS even if
they are both price the same?

Let me ask this: Play what, exactly?

Because the specs you listed in your question were created as a result of Software demand.

dtrjones
Protege

Zenbane said:


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 given it will be using PC hardware.


Depends on the Resolution, FoV, and other features of the HMD. The final product specs and features will determine the final pricing. Yes the snapdragon processor adds overhead to Quest, but that could easily be matched with state-of-the art visuals that surpass Quest.

In all likelihood though, Rift-S will either be the same or slightly cheaper. Just a few more days and then we get to move away from speculating about specs and price... and move towards speculating about the death of PCVR.
mmmm yummy


The death of PCVR? thats the one thing which is keeping me going LOL! I am hoping of course we can become unteathered one day however I think that will just mean that we have a viable wireless solution - I think it will be a long time before standalone brings the highest fidelity games and experiences - that for now has to come from a PC.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

dtrjones said:

The death of PCVR? thats the one thing which is keeping me going LOL! I am hoping of course we can become unteathered one day however I think that will just mean that we have a viable wireless solution - I think it will be a long time before standalone brings the highest fidelity games and experiences - that for now has to come from a PC.



Yeah, sorry, I was being tongue-in-cheek and making fun of all the comments from 2016 up to present day, from those who claim that PCVR is dead and dying.
😄