03-15-2019 09:15 PM
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:
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...
03-26-2019 11:08 AM
CrashFu said:
These are, after all, the people who refused to launch their motion controls until nearly a year after the Rift came out, knowing it gave a competitor the chance to undermine their sales, because they were dead-set on perfecting them first. It was risky, but I think it paid off for them in the end.
03-26-2019 11:31 AM
Mradr said:
CrashFu said:
Apart from all of the other very obvious reasons for them to focus on achieving mass adoption before pandering to small numbers of wealthy, high-end tech nerds...
Maybe they're holding off the CV2 until they've perfected certain features they want to include in it? Y'know, like foveated rendering and eye-tracking and all that.
1) Yet, the top 1% still holds more power than the other 90% of the world pop. What's your point?
2) Can't perfect what isn't out there. You need demo hardware and software before anyone can use such a device. That means you NEED to already deploying early revisions on what you want to come out in the future. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any rumors or word on this right now. The only world we have right now is that they discontinue a higher end project. That rumor came out around the same time as someone leaving Oculus and follow by updates of a Rift S.
3) The HMD cost isn't the entry point into PC VR - its the PC it self. The hardware and software of the PC makes or breaks if a customer can even run VR in the first place.
4) Another 3 years is a long ass time to wait. The people with money are looking for their next high end right now and they are the ones usually willing to spend more on games than a bunch of people that already had a hard time buying the headset in the first place.
5) Mass adoption needs a base - PCVR doesn't give it a base or starting point to focus on how well the software should run with in a given price point. PC - is wildly different per user and environment. Even if you have the same hardware - performance can widely swing depending on what that user is using the computer for.
6) Low end users already have options GO, Quest, CV1 (do to age and cost), and now Rift S. How many more options do low end users need? FREE!? LOL
03-26-2019 01:03 PM
CrashFu said:
Mradr said:
CrashFu said:
Apart from all of the other very obvious reasons for them to focus on achieving mass adoption before pandering to small numbers of wealthy, high-end tech nerds...
Maybe they're holding off the CV2 until they've perfected certain features they want to include in it? Y'know, like foveated rendering and eye-tracking and all that.
1) Yet, the top 1% still holds more power than the other 90% of the world pop. What's your point?
2) Can't perfect what isn't out there. You need demo hardware and software before anyone can use such a device. That means you NEED to already deploying early revisions on what you want to come out in the future. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any rumors or word on this right now. The only world we have right now is that they discontinue a higher end project. That rumor came out around the same time as someone leaving Oculus and follow by updates of a Rift S.
3) The HMD cost isn't the entry point into PC VR - its the PC it self. The hardware and software of the PC makes or breaks if a customer can even run VR in the first place.
4) Another 3 years is a long ass time to wait. The people with money are looking for their next high end right now and they are the ones usually willing to spend more on games than a bunch of people that already had a hard time buying the headset in the first place.
5) Mass adoption needs a base - PCVR doesn't give it a base or starting point to focus on how well the software should run with in a given price point. PC - is wildly different per user and environment. Even if you have the same hardware - performance can widely swing depending on what that user is using the computer for.
6) Low end users already have options GO, Quest, CV1 (do to age and cost), and now Rift S. How many more options do low end users need? FREE!? LOL
1. All that wealth doesn't matter much to the VR industry unless you're willing to pay 10x the price for every piece of software you buy. One rich kid buying a game for $10 is not a replacement for 10 average-wealth people buying a ten copies for $10 each, and if the developers can't expect a large enough market, they aren't going to bother making VR software in the first place.
3. Typical rich kid. You honestly think most people don't see any difference between spending $400 on an entertainment product and spending $1000+? And like Aekero said, the higher the VR system specs, the more expensive of a computer you need to run it. So higher specs mean an exponentially higher overall price. In the end, we're talking a VR setup for as low as $900 (including computer) for the Rift-S, and a minimum of $3000 for the kind of specs some of you are demanding. You think that doesn't make a difference to the average tech consumer? I had to work overtime every week for three years just to afford my current PC and the CV1 at launch, and I only did it because I'm such a hardcore enthusiast that I HAD to be on the ground floor of modern VR. If I had to spend that kind of money again, I'd rather put it towards a new car or healthcare or something I actually need.
4. If the "PC Master Race" was willing to spend "more on games" then why have PC games been devalued so drastically compared to console games? (I blame Valve's irresponsible business practices, mostly, but I'm sure there's more to it than that alone) Console gamers are still willing to pay $40-60 for a single game, whereas PC gamers throw a tantrum if developers ask more than $10. Hell, if wealthy PC gamers were buying soooooo many games, why has Viveport had to push their unlimited-games monthly subscription plan? Weren't all the Vive Pro and high-end third-party device owners buying enough games?
Suppose you'll be telling me about "trickle-down economics" next, huh?
6. Go exists for a wildly different purpose than the Quest or Rift-S, and Rift-S has benefits that Quest does not (full connectivity to PC, non-reliance on a battery, being powered by a CPU and GPU that isn't the size of a graham-cracker..) And the point of Rift-S is to replace the CV1 as THE Entry-Level PC VR system, to improve on the quality and ease-of-use of the entry-level experience, which is absolutely necessary to get PC users into VR in the first place.
It's called "Entry-Level" for a reason; People aren't going to run out and buy the most expensive VR system money can buy if they haven't even been convinced that VR is worth trying, yet. They'll start on the Rift-S, love it, and THEN (if they can afford it) start looking at higher-end products.
03-26-2019 02:01 PM
03-26-2019 02:19 PM
03-26-2019 02:37 PM
Digikid1 said:
We need “huge wall of text” tags. LOL
Some interesting points though.
03-26-2019 03:41 PM
Brixmis said:
I could swear I heard the Oculus guy saying this headset isn't aimed at current Rift owners. So why are people who have a Rift constantly moaning about how they don't want a Rift S?
03-26-2019 04:28 PM
03-26-2019 04:33 PM
Ya, I'm very curious to see if this is the case. But I would assume they fixed the USB bandwidth issue, that was one of the biggest drawbacks of the original CV1.
03-26-2019 04:39 PM