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

Anonymous
Not applicable

jayhawk said:

I thought this was a given by now. Oculus is interested in growing VR not catering to the enthusiasts. More chicken and egg scenario. Without mass adoption well never get those killer AAA titles, and without those AAA titles well never get mass adoption. Something's gotta give. Either more larger studios start producing games, or get more HMDs out there. Oculus is actually doing both. Making bigger and better games than the small studios are, while pushing for more mass adoption. I'll pick up an S day one, and although I'd love to have higher resolution, it might be a waste with my 1070.


That is the thing though - that WONT happen with PCVR - PCVR is high end - not main stream. Main stream doesn't care to have a PC in the first place. Main stream is Quest - not CV lines for the PC. Quest is their answer - so how much create another mains stream line if Quest is already the answer to their needs? See my point?

Best PCVR can offer is a possible 10% of the hardware out there that can even support todays hardware limits - that leaves 90% of the other market that could be consider main stream open for main stream device such as the Quest. It doesn't make sense to make the Rift S their main stream device. PCVR on the other hand can totally be their flag ship device - the ONE that provided the best of the best clarity, visually, and over all specs of the hardware. The fact that Quest it self has a higher panel goes to show that isn't the case.

You know what a main stream user will say? They will say "Wtf is a 1070? I play games on consoles. " or "I only play free to play games and I don't spend money on them." My point is that your main streamer users dont have enough money in the first place for the PC let alone any money left over for a headset. You have to bring all that cost down - but you are not going to do that with PCVR. There is just too much cost you have to over come instead you look to the mobile industry and you build out cheaper hardware that require less power to run in the first place and build a unit out of that - that is the main point of that Quest even is. 

Ideal:
Go = Entry price - media and light gaming
Quest = Not a PC, but support mobile gaming for sure. Will have basic console graphics and will be main stream and come at a lower cost than what it would take to run PCVR.
PCVR = High cost - not main stream - flag ship to show off what VR can do and what it is going to next. New features come to it first then trickle down to the rest.

Current:
GO = Main stream - low price... 
Quest = Main stream - low price...
Rift S = Nothing new, main stream .. still low price...

There is no flag ship here anymore - just saying - lots of people are going to jump ship - there just too many "main stream" devices here already. There are two markets - but only one side of the market is getting any love - and yes high end is proven it can pull in 4mil if needed so there is a market here.

Richooal
Consultant

snowdog said:


This is why Oculus are following the Tick Tock model...........

..............Zuckerberg knows what he's doing.



I'd like to think you're right, but I see the current Oculus Tick Tock like this..............
876xrjrtaf04.jpg
i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - Rift CV1 + 3 Sensors - 1 minor problem
Dear Oculus, If it ain't broke, don't fix it, please.

ShocksVR
Superstar

Mradr said:


jayhawk said:

I thought this was a given by now. Oculus is interested in growing VR not catering to the enthusiasts. More chicken and egg scenario. Without mass adoption well never get those killer AAA titles, and without those AAA titles well never get mass adoption. Something's gotta give. Either more larger studios start producing games, or get more HMDs out there. Oculus is actually doing both. Making bigger and better games than the small studios are, while pushing for more mass adoption. I'll pick up an S day one, and although I'd love to have higher resolution, it might be a waste with my 1070.


That is the thing though - that WONT happen with PCVR - PCVR is high end - not main stream. Main stream doesn't care to have a PC in the first place. Main stream is Quest - not CV lines for the PC. Quest is their answer - so how much create another mains stream line if Quest is already the answer to their needs? See my point?

Best PCVR can offer is a possible 10% of the hardware out there that can even support todays hardware limits - that leaves 90% of the other market that could be consider main stream open for main stream device such as the Quest. It doesn't make sense to make the Rift S their main stream device. PCVR on the other hand can totally be their flag ship device - the ONE that provided the best of the best clarity, visually, and over all specs of the hardware. The fact that Quest it self has a higher panel goes to show that isn't the case.

You know what a main stream user will say? They will say "Wtf is a 1070? I play games on consoles. " or "I only play free to play games and I don't spend money on them." My point is that your main streamer users dont have enough money in the first place for the PC let alone any money left over for a headset. You have to bring all that cost down - but you are not going to do that with PCVR. There is just too much cost you have to over come instead you look to the mobile industry and you build out cheaper hardware that require less power to run in the first place and build a unit out of that - that is the main point of that Quest even is. 


As you can see from the link the vast majority of Rift users fall within the "mainstream" when it comes to their graphics cards; that $200 GTX 1060 or $350 1070 or laptop GPU.  Of course PC gaming has "mainstream" gamers.

Heck, I have one of those PCMR VR Enthusiasts builds (with my GTX 1080ti) and I want affordable headsets. 



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

Anonymous
Not applicable

snowdog said:



Surely there's room for flexibility and changes of direction that a company takes, given that so much must have been learnt from the last 3 years of manufacturing and selling consumer hardware and funding software?

There will always be high end, if not from Oculus, then from somebody else, but if Oculus doesn't produce a mainstream headset with sufficient quality and capability that prospective mainstream will want it... then will somebody else? I don't see that happening at the moment, and if nobody else does... what would that spell for VR?

Isn't it possible that emergent technology like VR needs to begin high-end for it to make sense to early adaptors, but doesn't have to stay that way? indeed mustn't stay that way in order to survive and become sustainable?

Personally I'm not comfortable with views that equipment from a particular company should be high-end for fear of alienating sections of their costumers. Are existing users really that rigid? and if so, fine, there will be new users joining us who've been waiting for a more accessible yet capable PC headset, or who would otherwise have just waited even longer to get into VR if PC requirements continued to rise.... and I won't be looking down on these users either.

Changes of direction seem to me to be what successful companies do.... and consumer VR needs at least one successful company.



This is why Oculus are following the Tick Tock model. The first Tock (the Rift) was new expensive technology and was expensive (£790 including Touch controllers thanks to Oculus not having a decent COO). If Hans Hartmann was the COO at the beginning we would have seen the Riff and Touch controllers at £599 or maybe £649 on launch day.

Next we have the Tick (the Rift S) which is an updated version of the Tock with an updated display and updated lenses but pretty much the same headset in terms of features. This is launching for less than the launch price of the Rift.

Next up after the Rift S will be the Rift 2 (I'm expecting them to do a Sony and keep the brand name, you don't have a brand as strong as the PlayStation or Rift and dump it). This is going to have new features compared to the previous Tock and the previous Tick and should retail for around $600/£600 because of the new technology under the hood being more expensive to produce.

Me thinks you may be living in dreamland there now. There was a time I thought you may be right in this line of thinking, but for me that has changed.

Everything is now pointing to Oculus not going the high end PC-VR route any longer.
They are leaving that ball for others to pick up and run with, which apparently others are grabbing by the horn.
In fact Oculus' focus is so weak on PC-VR now they contracted with Lenova to bring an updated Rift to market.
Basically a WMR device using the Oculus Ecosystem.

Not saying it is wrong for them to do, as they obviously are going after overall market share and I think they are more focused on the social aspect of VR than anything. Whether that strategy pays off for them remains to be seen. Social obviously is what FB is all about, and that is where they see their future in VR IMHO. 


Anonymous
Not applicable


As you can see from the link the vast majority of Rift users fall within the "mainstream" when it comes to their graphics cards; that $200 GTX 1060 or $350 1070 or laptop GPU.  Of course PC gaming has "mainstream" gamers.

Heck, I have one of those PCMR VR Enthusiasts builds (with my GTX 1080ti) and I want affordable headsets. 





... You understand though that sample size is just base off Oculus stuff, right? That - of course - will have a higher number of supported devices. If we look at something that has a better picture of not just PCVR - but even flat screen games we see a different picture.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

Granted - it's still a sample size and not perfect by any means - but it's still a BIGGER sample size than most.

As we can see PCVR is less than 1%. Following that only about 20% of the people that use stream has hardware that could even run PCVR in the first place right now. The most common card is the 1060 following that is the 1050ti at 9% that is too small to play VR with. Index for example will be supporting min 970s - they is going to leave it still with that same 20% of users that will have access to a higher end HMD. That means there is still room room for improvements on the HMD to be had.

If price is what is holding people back though - why didn't more people pick of a CV1 when it was 50$ cheaper than the Rift S is going to be release at? Something else is holding back PCVR and it's not price. At the same time - 20% is a FAR cry of the greater 80% people that I assume would love to get into VR but can't because the hardware to get into VR is just over their budget. For them Quest is the answer - is because its 80 freaking percent here - they are consider the main stream market NOT the 20% that you and everyone else here falls into. Everyone here is consider a enthusiast actually. Even you @CrashFu, you are a rich boy for even owning a PC and the HMD in the first place.

Over all ShocksOculus - your main stream is consider enthusiast to the rest of the market and NOT main stream at all. It has the BIGGEST gap for sure - but that doesn't make it main stream when it comes at 20% compare to the rest of the market that is there. There for - PCVR can't be main stream - only Quest can.

Anonymous
Not applicable

dburne said:


snowdog said:



Surely there's room for flexibility and changes of direction that a company takes, given that so much must have been learnt from the last 3 years of manufacturing and selling consumer hardware and funding software?

There will always be high end, if not from Oculus, then from somebody else, but if Oculus doesn't produce a mainstream headset with sufficient quality and capability that prospective mainstream will want it... then will somebody else? I don't see that happening at the moment, and if nobody else does... what would that spell for VR?

Isn't it possible that emergent technology like VR needs to begin high-end for it to make sense to early adaptors, but doesn't have to stay that way? indeed mustn't stay that way in order to survive and become sustainable?

Personally I'm not comfortable with views that equipment from a particular company should be high-end for fear of alienating sections of their costumers. Are existing users really that rigid? and if so, fine, there will be new users joining us who've been waiting for a more accessible yet capable PC headset, or who would otherwise have just waited even longer to get into VR if PC requirements continued to rise.... and I won't be looking down on these users either.

Changes of direction seem to me to be what successful companies do.... and consumer VR needs at least one successful company.



This is why Oculus are following the Tick Tock model. The first Tock (the Rift) was new expensive technology and was expensive (£790 including Touch controllers thanks to Oculus not having a decent COO). If Hans Hartmann was the COO at the beginning we would have seen the Riff and Touch controllers at £599 or maybe £649 on launch day.

Next we have the Tick (the Rift S) which is an updated version of the Tock with an updated display and updated lenses but pretty much the same headset in terms of features. This is launching for less than the launch price of the Rift.

Next up after the Rift S will be the Rift 2 (I'm expecting them to do a Sony and keep the brand name, you don't have a brand as strong as the PlayStation or Rift and dump it). This is going to have new features compared to the previous Tock and the previous Tick and should retail for around $600/£600 because of the new technology under the hood being more expensive to produce.

Me thinks you may be living in dreamland there now. There was a time I thought you may be right in this line of thinking, but for me that has changed.

Everything is now pointing to Oculus not going the high end PC-VR route any longer.
They are leaving that ball for others to pick up and run with, which apparently others are grabbing by the horn.
In fact Oculus' focus is so weak on PC-VR now they contracted with Lenova to bring an updated Rift to market.
Basically a WMR device using the Oculus Ecosystem.

Not saying it is wrong for them to do, as they obviously are going after overall market share and I think they are more focused on the social aspect of VR than anything. Whether that strategy pays off for them remains to be seen. Social obviously is what FB is all about, and that is where they see their future in VR IMHO. 





Abrash will pretty much confirm I'm right about this at the end of September at OC6.

Do you honestly think that Arash will have NOTHING to show or say at that event..? He's not going to say, 'Here's the Half Dome again, working better than it was and we're closer to getting it ready for 2022. But, of course, we're not going to release it until 2025 because if we release it earlier than that we'll have to charge $600 for it. So you're all going to have to wait another 5 years before we release it.'.

Or maybe, 'Here's the standalone version of the Half Dome, which we've called the Quest Dome. It's going to be ready for release in 2022 but we won't be able to release it until 2028 when we can get the price down to $399.'.

Oculus need high end PC VR.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

Richooal said:

....


I'd like to think you're right, but I see the current Oculus Tick Tock like this..............
876xrjrtaf04.jpg



Hey, least twice a day a broken clock is right!
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

ShocksVR
Superstar

Mradr said:



As you can see from the link the vast majority of Rift users fall within the "mainstream" when it comes to their graphics cards; that $200 GTX 1060 or $350 1070 or laptop GPU.  Of course PC gaming has "mainstream" gamers.

Heck, I have one of those PCMR VR Enthusiasts builds (with my GTX 1080ti) and I want affordable headsets. 





... You understand though that sample size is just base off Oculus stuff, right? That - of course - will have a higher number of supported devices. If we look at something that has a better picture of not just PCVR - but even flat screen games we see a different picture.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

Granted - it's still a sample size and not perfect by any means - but it's still a BIGGER sample size than most.

As we can see PCVR is less than 1%. Following that only about 20% of the people that use stream has hardware that could even run PCVR in the first place right now. The most common card is the 1060 following that that is the 1050ti at 9% that is too small to play VR with. Index for example will be supporting min 970s - they is going to leave it still with that same 20% of users that will have access to a higher end HMD. That means there is still room room for improvements on the HMD to be had.

If price is what is holding people back though - why didn't more people pick of a CV1 when it was 50$ cheaper than the Rift S is going to be release at? Something else is holding back PCVR and it's not price. At the same time - 20% is a FAR cry of the greater 80% people that I assume would love to get into VR but can't because the hardware to get into VR is just over their budget. For them Quest is the answer - is because its 80 freaking percent here - they are consider the main stream market NOT the 20% that you and everyone else here falls into. Everyone here is consider a enthusiast actually. Even you @CrashFu, you are a rich boy for even owning a PC and the HMD in the first place. Over all ShocksOculus - your main stream is consider enthusiast to the rest of the market and NOT main stream at all.


The Oculus hardware survey is what the current VR "Enthusiasts" are sporting. And going by those metrics most are using puny hardware that can't even run a HP Reverb.

And if we use your STEAM hardware survey, most DO NOT have high spec'ed machines (so NO we don't see a different picture, you are proving my point). VR adoption will need to be inclusive and cater to those with the $200 GPU. For someone with a $200 GPU, a $400 VR headset is probably a lot of money.  And you can't say, well if your too poor to buy a GTX 1080 then you are forced to use a Quest.  There's an obvious middle ground, Oculus agrees and that's what they're catering too.  We know the number of Rift buyers at $800 was tiny. Only when Rift went down to $400 did numbers increase, and have increased annually.


Why hasn't adoption taken off? As with all things, it's Price and Content.  Price needs to be affordable, and we need content to play; just like with gaming consoles.  I seriously doubt if Oculus released a $1000 high end VR headset, that Jim, Bob, and Martha from regular America would be jumping at the opportunity to buy it.  Go talk to ppl outside of VR, most don't like it because the "Games Suck!!" and they view VR as "Too Expensive!!".  This is why it's vital companies like Oculus continue to double down on funding exclusive titles and providing a reasonable cost for hardware.

Instead, what we have here are VR super enthusiasts demanding a $1000 headset, to play on their $2000+ PC, so they can play Beat Saber at 4k, or Rec Room at 3k, or VRChat with feet tracking. Highend hardware to play tech demos.  It's a completely lop sided view.

But if you don;t like the direction Oculus is taking then there's options. If you want highend, go buy a $1200 Vive Pro, go buy a $5000 Varjo, go buy a $2500 StarOne VR, go buy a $1000+ Pimax, go buy a Acer Ojo (just announced yesterday), or go buy a Valve Index.  These highend options exist right now or very soon ! And their market share is tiny.

As a final point, as I stated in one of my previous replies, Rubin has already said: the market for a $450+ VR headset isn't there. If anyone has the data mining to back that up, it's Facebook.

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

Anonymous
Not applicable

The Oculus hardware survey is what the current VR "Enthusiasts" are sporting. And going by those metrics most are using puny hardware that can't even run a HP Reverb.

And if we use your STEAM hardware survey, most DO NOT have high spec'ed machines (so NO we don't see a different picture, you are proving my point). VR adoption will need to be inclusive and cater to those with the $200 GPU. For someone with a $200 GPU, a $400 VR headset is probably a lot of money.  And you can't say, well if your too poor to buy a GTX 1080 then you are forced to use a Quest.  There's an obvious middle ground, Oculus agrees and that's what they're catering too.  We know the number of Rift buyers at $800 was tiny. Only when Rift went down to $400 did numbers increase, and have increased annually.


Why hasn't adoption taken off? As with all things, it's Price and Content.  Price needs to be affordable, and we need content to play; just like with gaming consoles.  I seriously doubt if Oculus released a $1000 high end VR headset, that Jim, Bob, and Martha from regular America would be jumping at the opportunity to buy it.  Go talk to ppl outside of VR, most don't like it because the "Games Suck!!" and they view VR as "Too Expensive!!".  This is why it's vital companies like Oculus continue to double down on funding exclusive titles and providing a reasonable cost for hardware.

Instead, what we have here are VR super enthusiasts demanding a $1000 headset, to play on their $2000+ PC, so they can play Beat Saber at 4k, or Rec Room at 3k, or VRChat with feet tracking. Highend hardware to play tech demos.  It's a completely lop sided view.

But if you don;t like the direction Oculus is taking then there's options. If you want highend, go buy a $1200 Vive Pro, go buy a $5000 Varjo, go buy a $2500 StarOne VR, go buy a $1000+ Pimax, go buy a Acer Ojo (just announced yesterday), or go buy a Valve Index.  These highend options exist right now or very soon ! And their market share is tiny.

As a final point, as I stated in one of my previous replies, Rubin has already said: the market for a $450+ VR headset isn't there. If anyone has the data mining to back that up, it's Facebook.



LOL what? You are saying they are the same XD? DID YOU EVEN LOOK?

They clearly are a different view point and picture on what the market is like. You can clearly see that what you are calling mainstream is but the minority of what is out there. The majority of users cant even run PCVR in the first place. Aka, why Quest is the answer to mainstream - NOT PCVR. Even Oculus backs that up. Why else would they even bother with Quest? The fact IS Quest is for mainstream and they know it is the answer for it. Even last OC they said that if Quest fails - shit might hit the fan for VR on a whole.

I will say, sure PCVR should aim for the 1060+ hardware - but that doesn't mean they can't aim for higher if allow. The so call market for mainstream isn't PCVR though and something you need to understand. The mainstream market REALLY don't own a powerful computer let alone one with a powerful GPU in the first place. Trying to keep hardware level low only will carter to a point. Your PRICE only has been dis proven by the fact that CV1 was already the lowest COST headset. PRICE can't be your stand point anymore. Something ELSE is causing the slow uptake in PCVR. I gave reason in other post - but people that keep claiming PRICE is the reason fail to answer WHY CV1 didn't uptake any better.

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 COPY PAST this from the other page BECAUSE its the same argument you two MAKE every time giving off the same values and statements - it NEVER changes meaning you two have no clue what you are talking about and trying to make a bigger out landish point that DOESNT even exist. HIGH END VR doesn't cost 1000s - it stil with in reason of what the market is willing to pay. Just understand - your price arugement doesn't hold and you are the ones saying it cost 1000s to be in the high end market when clearly that isn't true and there are a number of people willing to spend that upper 800-600 range as well.

inovator
Consultant
Bigmike  thanks for the article. U may remember or not me saying more than once high end isn't oculus goal. I also said mainstream was . I said way back and still believe that if the quest hugely overcomes the market it will phase out pcvr and just go with either standalone or maybe make standalone and pc in one unit. Many have said I was very wrong when I expressed how oculus felt before that post you submitted. Will there be much better optics and fov? Absolutely! But in a slow but affordable pace as technology pricing gets cheaper. at my age I'm not happy at the slow pace. But it's for the best. In the meantime high end may continue to be filled by others. That's good as well.