cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath

bigmike20vt
Visionary
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=3&hl=de&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=...

Pretty bleak reading imo excuse long link Google shortener not working on it
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂
401 REPLIES 401

For the sake of argument, I'm going to call 2160 x 2160 per eye, high-end.

At some point (we can argue on when), we'll have GPUs capable of running high-end at acceptable frame rates in the games and apps that we like to use.

Or we'll have wotking foveated rendering, to enable currently available top-end GPUs (or perhaps less than top-end) to run them at acceptable frame rates.

imho neither of those cases are available to use now (without rendering down or upscaling or whatever) and probably not available within the next 12 months.

I think of myself as an enthusiast, but only when either is available, that's when I'll bemoan Oculus not having a high-end headset... or, more likely if another manufacture has the headset available, I'll just buy it (within the limits of my budget) without bemoaning anything.

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:

I just wonder why Oculus partnered with Lenovo to make the Rift -S. I might be totally wrong when I say this, but it comes across like they didn't have time for PC -VR, so used another company for Rift -S while they continued working on Oculus Quest. Where they not capable of designing the Rift -S themselves? Why did they hand it PC -VR over to Lenovo?

I do think Oculus has made the correct decision bringing out a headset for mid range PC's though. That way everyone can get into VR, but they need to be more transparent about their road map concerning PC -VR. They know eye tracking technology is being developed, so instead of talking about body tracking why don't they talk about eye tracking which I'm sure is just around the corner?

What they have said so far regarding PC -VR is a bit of a mixed bag tbh. It was only last year they spoke about eye tracking and half dome, so if any of the above comments are true, then have they just decided not to bring these features to PC -VR until body tracking is also available?

I just don't want Oculus PC -VR to get left behind and right now it won't because of Nvidia's graphic card pricing. We all no you need a beefy PC to run higher resolutions, but it only takes one VR company to add eye tracking n their headset and Oculus could get left behind. This makes me bit weary about getting PC -VR games from their store because they are being a bit vague if this article is true.

I would like to know why the partnered with Lenovo though instead of creating their own PC -VR headset.

My opinion.
PC-VR is no longer a large focus of Oculus. They are pushing more for larger adoption utilizing the social aspect of FB.
They settled on partnering with Lenova to give the PC-VR users a little something especially with the newer headsets that have come out and are about to come out in hopes of not giving up too much of their existing PC-VR market.

They have done a huge about face from this time around a year ago with the talk of Half Dome, which appeared would once again lead the PC-VR industry in technology.
I hate to say it, but I will likely get the Rift S. Just for my Oculus games I do enjoy, and that Vador Immortal is just looking very sweet. But for what I use VR for the most, my combat flight sims and maybe racing sims one day, I will also likely grab the Valve Index. It offers more of what I want.

CrashFu
Consultant
Anyone who thinks that expensive, high-end tech pushes the industry forward is delusional.

Prototypes push the industry forward, by testing out new technology that will eventually benefit all consumers.  

Higher quality entry-level devices
like the Rift-S push the industry forward, by making people aware that this new technology isn't just science fiction or a toy for rich kids; it's something that almost anyone can get their hands on, and it's worth it.

Expensive, high-end devices  don't do any of those things.  They don't create any new tech that doesn't already exist in prototypes, they just use the most expensive of what's already available. To the few that can actually afford to buy them, they're just early access to the quality of tech that will be cheap a few years later.  To everyone else, they just reinforce the idea that this tech isn't affordable and might as well be science fiction, effectively destroying interest in VR rather than creating it.

Also, I guarantee that any company pushing out high-end VR systems now is just in it for a short-term cash grab. They know they're never going to secure a large market at that price level, which means they probably aren't planning to invest much into content creation or any kind of long-term software improvements.  Heck, they might not even care about the quality of the device at launch, so long as it looks good enough to secure preorders and first-day sales.

In other words, you may be willing to spend top-dollar to get slightly better tech today instead of a couple years from now, but you will almost certainly regret it.  If you're smart, you'll wait for the technology to become cheaper, and only buy from companies who have proven that they're invested in the industry long-term.
It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.

Anonymous
Not applicable

CrashFu said:

In other words, you may be willing to spend top-dollar to get slightly better tech today instead of a couple years from now, but you will almost certainly regret it.  If you're smart, you'll wait for the technology to become cheaper, and only buy from companies who have proven that they're invested in the industry long-term.


If everyone had that mind set - no one would buy the newest stuff - no one would be buying a Ryzen 2 - no one would be buying a Intel i9. No one would be buying 20s cards and everyone will be using 10s or even cheaper 9s cards. The fact that isn't the case just proves how blind to the market you are... price isn't everything and you need to learn that and understand there are different markets that want different things. My gosh! One market does help push and makes things cheaper for the next. Just because YOU can't afford something that is going to be better - doesn't mean others can't. This has been a thing FAR longer than you been alive my boy.

The fact you keep having to say this when there is other proof in front of your face goes to show you don't fully understand the bigger picture at play. The CV1 was already cheaper than the Rift S will be coming out as and yet we are still sitting at 1% - EXPLAIN this first before trying to shout that price is the only way forward. History of other products goes to show other wise, in many cases, that isn't the case. With the first cell phones being the cost of todays computers and yet - they were value for communication that FAR existed what price to their value ever was. We have to hit good enough marks before the masses will take it up. If we do not hit good enough makers - then there will never been a future for that product always being that bit shy of being a great product.

You keep going on about 1000s + prices - WHY not trying to keep it with in reason for once - 800-600$ isn't that bad really. People spend that much every year just for fun.

No, price alone is shit reason - what will push VR forward is the following:
1) Getting VR software people want to play - this is KING KEY to VR and any other platform
2) Remove the extra mess to get into VR - this would include but not limited to external sensor setup, in and out of VR when needed, easy of use, plug and play design, comfort, and all around good enough specs that doesn't look like they are missing something from their past experiences (aka flat screen gaming).
3) Finding software/hardware ways to lower hardware requirements while still providing a way to meet or go above what we have now (this mainly aiming at visual clarity much like the resolution wars of sub 1080p).

Problems with VR:
1) Clarity - seeing more details in what we have. Right now - if you compare any VR headset to what a 1080p screen provides - hands down - most people will say 1080p screen looks better. The PPD is just soo much better than what we have at this time. We would need to either double or triple current resolutions just to be close current monitors are like.
2) The lack of software compare to what there is for flat screen gaming. The lack of production software compare to flat screen.
3) It's not easy to get in and out of VR. 
4) The space require for VR is costly let alone having to be connected to a PC or with in the same room as to where it is.
5) PC hardware cost.
6) etc

Rift S does a good job meeting a NUMBER of these - but it also made trade offs in the process and that is going to hurt it as well. If another 200-400$ can help fix some of the other issues - than it be worth it for the every day VR user that wants to get into VR and stay in VR. Choice is king there and that is what makes the market soo amazing for people that are looking to get the newest stuff and with people that don't always need the newest stuff - but wants something to just work for them.

For example, if it cost me another 400 for the Rift S+ that included 2k or 4k screens (dual) with eye tracking (even keeping with the same 5 camera vision tracking / everything else the same) - YOU DAM WELL WILL see me buying that headset along with many other people (over 6000 backers for example for Pimax at over 4mil) that would see that as an amazing value. Not only are we getting higher clarity, but also a method that can help render the target resources needed to run it. You wont be able to do both at Rift S current price point even if you dream about it. The point is - you said increasing prices wont help - but CLEARLY it can help in this case and is something that needs to be taken at heart if a product is only going to choose lower price point just to starve the rest of the advancements that could come sooner.

I mean I can't see what Oculus is doing - but as of right now - without any other communication of Oculus - it really doesn't sound like they are going to have a higher end model and there for - is running the risk (as everyone sees) turning down some of their customer market in hopes that lower price and small advancements will bring enough newer players in-instead. It may be well possible they are planing on a CV2 and we might hear more about it soon with Vavle releasing their plans of the Index - but until that happens - I really question the focus for PCVR right now from them and people like that don't need to be call a rich snob from you when we just want good VR.

edmg
Trustee

CrashFu said:

Anyone who thinks that expensive, high-end tech pushes the industry forward is delusional.


Um, yeah, that's why companies don't put out $2000 graphics cards and $3000 CPUs.

High-end tech is where you make money testing new technology for future products. Sales are low, but margins are high and you see how it works in the real world rather than your labs.

I can see why Oculus might want to pass on the high-end--all Facebook really care about is controlling the VR social media market and they don't need their own headsets to do that--but the expensive high-end tech is precisely what does push the industry forward.

We'd still be running DOS on a 486 otherwise.

I don't care that much because I'm not tied to Oculus, but I guess I'll have to wait and see what comes out of whatever companies the ex-Oculus folks have moved to.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
I love high-end - the "Prosumer" culture drives PC, Hifi and sports car development, and the trickle down from these allows conventional consumers to see benefits. Its just that pivoting from supporting the High-end, towards supporting the "good enough VR" scene brings with it a legacy problem - and the eventual backlash from those you leave behind with your previous generation of products, and the promises you made back then!

This level of pivoting comes with a cost.
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

CrashFu
Consultant
This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  You create this myth to convince yourselves that elitism has merit, and to try and hold on to your fading relevance as early-adopters as the tech approaches mainstream. All your patronage of high-end tech really accomplishes is encouraging companies to keep the tech expensive for as long as possible, until the next generation of products forces them to sell at a reasonable price.

If it weren't for the high-end market, cutting-edge technology would go from prototype to entry-level affordable in a fraction of the time it does now.  And if companies weren't wasting their time developing higher-spec hardware to wow journalists and compete in ****-measuring contests, they'd instead be focused on developing more radical improvements for their next generation products, or adding value to their existing hardware by developing software improvements and content.   VR hasn't gone fully mainstream yet or produced all the features on our collective wishlists because the high-end market is holding us back.

Don't believe me? Ask yourselves this:  Which companies have contributed the most to the VR industry thus far?  Which ones have given us the most worthwhile content, and the very best content?  Which ones have supported their devices the best after release?  Which ones have gotten the most people into VR? Which companies are keeping this industry alive right now?

Anyone can see that it's NOT the companies making expensive, high-end hardware.  It's companies like Oculus and Sony, and they've accomplished what they have because they prioritize affordable, entry-level products, not in spite of it.

It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.

Anonymous
Not applicable

CrashFu said:

This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  You create this myth to convince yourselves that elitism has merit, and to try and hold on to your fading relevance as early-adopters as the tech approaches mainstream. All your patronage of high-end tech really accomplishes is encouraging companies to keep the tech expensive for as long as possible, until the next generation of products forces them to sell at a reasonable price.


Less than 1% bro - that isn't main stream...

Also Sony PSVR is consider high end for the market it is in - so are you agreeing then:)?

ShocksVR
Superstar
@CrashFu Yup.  I only bought into the Rift (late 2016) when I got it for $300 (headset), and only bought Touch after it went down to $100. It has to be affordable (and $400 is still a lot of money !!!)

Why buy a $800 VR headset when it will be obsolete in 3-4 years anyways; if ppl are willing to pay $800+ to be 1-2 years ahead of the others then so be it.  VR tech is moving quick, and it ain't all about expensive hardware with "max resolution panels" and "high fov". It'll be about eye tracking, body tracking, haptic feedback, 360 precision audio, voice feedback.  VR is gonna need that "Super Software" John Carmack keeps bringing up at his annual Oculus Connect keynote. 

Keep the refresh price near $400, give us the super software we need, and I'll be happy to upgrade headsets every few years.
i7-7700k, Zotac RTX 3080 AMP Holo (10G), QuestPro, Quest 2
Previous: Oculus GO, Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale, Oculus Rift S

bigmike20vt
Visionary


CrashFu said:

This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  You create this myth to convince yourselves that elitism has merit, and to try and hold on to your fading relevance as early-adopters as the tech approaches mainstream. All your patronage of high-end tech really accomplishes is encouraging companies to keep the tech expensive for as long as possible, until the next generation of products forces them to sell at a reasonable price.

If it weren't for the high-end market, cutting-edge technology would go from prototype to entry-level affordable in a fraction of the time it does now.  And if companies weren't wasting their time developing higher-spec hardware to wow journalists and compete in ****-measuring contests, they'd instead be focused on developing more radical improvements for their next generation products, or adding value to their existing hardware by developing software improvements and content.   VR hasn't gone fully mainstream yet or produced all the features on our collective wishlists because the high-end market is holding us back.

Don't believe me? Ask yourselves this:  Which companies have contributed the most to the VR industry thus far?  Which ones have given us the most worthwhile content, and the very best content?  Which ones have supported their devices the best after release?  Which ones have gotten the most people into VR? Which companies are keeping this industry alive right now?

Anyone can see that it's NOT the companies making expensive, high-end hardware.  It's companies like Oculus and Sony, and they've accomplished what they have because they prioritize affordable, entry-level products, not in spite of it.



Who was it who helped get the rift past it kick starter goals again? 

Besides it is all relative oculus RiftS is high end in the grand scheme. You just consider high end at a different point so whilst you are peddling this high end elitist stuff there are people with ps3s Xbox 360s and trying a bit of Google cardboard vr who will be wondering who you are talking about



Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂