04-12-2019 02:53 PM
04-13-2019 04:05 PM
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.
04-13-2019 04:14 PM
snowdog said:
This is why Oculus are following the Tick Tock model...........
..............Zuckerberg knows what he's doing.
04-13-2019 04:16 PM
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.
04-13-2019 04:24 PM
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.
snowdog said:
DaftnDirect 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.
04-13-2019 04:37 PM
ShocksOculus 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.
04-13-2019 04:42 PM
dburne said:
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.
snowdog said:
DaftnDirect 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.
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.
04-13-2019 04:45 PM
I'd like to think you're right, but I see the current Oculus Tick Tock like this..............
04-13-2019 05:13 PM
Mradr said:
ShocksOculus 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.
04-13-2019 05:28 PM
ShocksOculus said: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.
04-13-2019 05:44 PM