High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath - Page 2 — Oculus
New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

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

2456714

Comments

  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 287
    Nexus 6
    edited April 13
    I wasn't here for the early days, but weren't the DK1 and DK2 "affordable?" (Dk1 was $300, and DK2 was $350).
    And when the CV1 price was released wasn't there a huge shitstorm from the community about "not being around the $350 ballpark" figure?

    It seems Oculus has a longer history of $300-$400 headsets, rather than the one time $600+ CV1.
    i7-7700k, GTX 1080Ti (11G) || MSI B150m (1 USB controller) + Inateck 4-port USB to PCIe (2nd USB controller)
    Oculus Rift S
    Oculus GO
    Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,318 Valuable Player
    ShocksOculus said:
    ....
    I wasn't here for the early days, but weren't the DK1 and DK2 "affordable?" (Dk1 was $300, and DK2 was $350).
    And when the CV1 price was released wasn't there a huge shitstorm from the community about "not being around the $350 ballpark" figure?

    It seems Oculus has a longer history of $300-$400 headsets, rather than the one time $600+ CV1.

    Yeah, the hardware was placed at a expensive peripheral price point, but the power of the system to run it on, and the level of technical skill to achieve the best results placed this in the "PC-Master-Race", "Prosumer" bracket of adoption. The promise from the previous management was to offer "not good enough VR but the best, no matter the complexity", so we have always seen this latest insurgence in VR interest coming from those prepared to go the extra mile. Why additional systems such as the Virtuix omni-directional treadmill was seen as a obvious home system for those prepared to buy the best, only for that expected buyer base never to material. OculusVR has been trying to find the "sweet spot" since the grandiose hype claims of the expected 10m+ purchasers in the first few months, (proposed numbers that defined the Facebook acquisition).
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "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
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,779 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    I wasn't here for the early days, but weren't the DK1 and DK2 "affordable?" (Dk1 was $300, and DK2 was $350).
    And when the CV1 price was released wasn't there a huge shitstorm from the community about "not being around the $350 ballpark" figure?

    It seems Oculus has a longer history of $300-$400 headsets, rather than the one time $600+ CV1.
    You are forgetting the cost of the machine to run it on ;). DK1 and DK2 were apparently sold at cost but I don't think it is feasible to expect that for ever
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,318 Valuable Player
    In speaking with the team at Samsung responsible for the GearVR and the new standalone system - it was obvious that OculusVR was always focused on high-end with the CV1 - though Oculus Texas stayed separate and focused on low-end, and it is that that has now seen the redefining of the strategy. That is not to say that OculusVR or FacebookVR will not return to a glory product like the CV2?

    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "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
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,595 Valuable Player
    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.
    Intel 5820K OC@4Ghz, Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1809 (17763.348)
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,123
    Wintermute
    CrashFu said:
    This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  
    Where would computers be today if no 'elitists' were willing to pay $1,000,000+ for them fifty years ago?

    Your argument is the absurd one. And you've clearly never worked in consumer electronics. Back when I did, the high-end market was where we made the money that allowed us to develop new products; most of the revenue came from the low-end, but most of the profits came from the high-end where both price and margins were high.
  • jayhawkjayhawk Posts: 745
    3Jane
    edited April 13
    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.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 5,811 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    The only thing that concerns me is Oculus partnering with Lenovo to create Rift -S, and then basically saying in the article that that's it for a while folks. I thought they were building a Rift 2, but the article suggests that isn't the case. That's my only concern, that they aren't even working on a Rift 2 when I thought they were.  

    Did I read the article right or have I had to much red wine :D
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,377 Valuable Player
    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.

    Oculus need that Tock and its early adopters so that they don't lose money manufacturing it, and they NEED to manufacture it to get the manufacturing costs down, not only ready for the cheaper Tick that will follow a few years after it but also so that the technology will filter down to their standalone headsets when the costs are reduced even further a few years after that latest Tick has been released.

    It has nothing to do with being Elitist, the aim for Oculus is to get ALL of this technology mature enough so that it can be used for standalone headsets, headsets that will start to be as common as DVD Players and TVs are right now in people's homes.

    Early adopters such as us are willing to pay a little extra to get these things a few years earlier. What Oculus are NOT going to do is funnel millions of dollars of R&D into the Half Dome prototype and then IGNORE that technology until it becomes as cheap as chips to produce for their standalone headsets...but they're ALSO not going to release it too early for anywhere close to a grand either. HTC and Pimax have both made that mistake.

    If enthusiasts/early adopters abandon the Rift S in favour of the Valve Index or any other headset that will be balanced out by the new people buying the Tick and the chances are (because Oculus are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of R&D) by the time that Tock comes along a lot of those people will return to buying the better headset with a new feature (such as varifocals).

    Zuckerberg knows what he's doing.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    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.
  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 287
    Nexus 6
    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, GTX 1080Ti (11G) || MSI B150m (1 USB controller) + Inateck 4-port USB to PCIe (2nd USB controller)
    Oculus Rift S
    Oculus GO
    Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale
  • dburnedburne Posts: 1,980 Valuable Player
    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. 


    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case|
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 13

    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.

  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,377 Valuable Player
    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.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,318 Valuable Player
    Richooal said:

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


    Hey, least twice a day a broken clock is right!
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "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
  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 287
    Nexus 6
    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, GTX 1080Ti (11G) || MSI B150m (1 USB controller) + Inateck 4-port USB to PCIe (2nd USB controller)
    Oculus Rift S
    Oculus GO
    Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    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.
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,712
    Project 2501
    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.
  • Hiro_Protag0nistHiro_Protag0nist Posts: 4,681 Valuable Player
    I wasn't here for the early days, but weren't the DK1 and DK2 "affordable?" (Dk1 was $300, and DK2 was $350).
    And when the CV1 price was released wasn't there a huge shitstorm from the community about "not being around the $350 ballpark" figure?

    It seems Oculus has a longer history of $300-$400 headsets, rather than the one time $600+ CV1.

    Well hang on, the DK1 and 2 weren't production headsets - they were meant for developers only (Palmer's words).

    As for CV2 - another thing they were clear on - somewhere between mobile phone and console lifespan.  Unfortunately, consoles have very long lifespans.
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,139 Volunteer Moderator
    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?
    We could change that to:
    "I just wonder why Oculus partnered with Xiaomi to make the Go. I might be totally wrong when I say this, but it comes across like they didn't have time for Mobile -VR, so used another company for Go while they continued working on Oculus Quest. Where they not capable of designing the Go themselves? Why did they hand it Mobile -VR over to Xiaomi?
    :)


    A problem VR adoption has is that it's not usually seen out in public. In the early days of smart phones, you could see people using them in public. On the train, on the bus, walking around. They stood out and gained attention. You could look over someone's shoulder on the train and see their smart phone playing games or browsing web pages, while your crappy motorola had a tiny text display and big rubber buttons. Or you'd see tourists walking around with cool looking DSLR cameras.
    But you don't (usually) see VR on the train. You don't see someone set up a Vive at a Starbucks (but you do see heaps of people with macbooks or smart phones there). People might see VR in web articles or youtube videos, but they don't see it in typical everyday life. It's mainly if they have an enthusiast friend who shows it off that they can get an experience with it to really understand what it's like. The closest experience an average person might have had is 3D movies, but that's a VERY different.

    DSLR is an interesting area. They used to be hugely expensive and for professionals. But then the big few companies (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc) went for the prosumer market. Lower specced cameras at a lower price. Then they went for the consumer market with even cheaper models, but still with the "DSLR is better than point&shoot" glamor. But they didn't stop catering to the smaller enthusiast / professional market.
    Right now I can buy a Canon 1500D camera for $644au. But they also sell the 5D Mark IV for $5699au.
    Someone new to it would go for the 1500D, but as someone with experience at them, I'd go for the 5D Mark IV.

  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 13,631 Valuable Player
    edited April 13
    Mradr said:
    That is the thing though - that WONT happen with PCVR - PCVR is high end - not main stream.

    This is wrong. And I'm sure we'll argue for 10 pages over it. That's okay, I'm ready!

    Your perspective is purely from an Entertainment standpoint. Which means your perspective is limited in scope to a single Industry. Whereas VR, much like all Information Technology, is part of a global infrastructure that spans nearly every single Industry that can ever be conceived. Far beyond mere entertainment. Your argument attempts to pigeon hold VR.

    I'll give one example: Corporate Enterprise Applications.

    Something like GO and Quest - which are Stand Alone VR Devices - force a Company to create and publish VR Applications that must be installed on external hardware to function (the storage that physically exists on GO/Quest). This is immensely limiting the capabilities of how VR can extend the internal operations infrastructure of an organization. Enterprise Applications exist on the Internal Network of an organization, since they often need to connect to multiple internal Data Stores - usually separated geographically across a global network. The only way to allow an Enterprise VR Application to function in this environment is if the VR Hardware can work off a Workstation.

    There is nothing more mainstream than Windows-based Workstations at every major company in every First Word Company on Earth.

    Being able to build and deploy Windows-based applications to these Workstations and hooking up something like Rift-S is the single-most beneficial way to bring VR to the Mainstream world where it counts most. There is nothing more mainstream than bringing VR to the workplace, and we're already well on our way to doing that now. But VR "enthusiasts" (I use that term loosely here) who go online to VR Forums tend to limit their perspective to Entertainment Media and Video Games. As if VR is somehow that limited in scope.

    For anyone to say that "PCVR is high-end, not mainstream" is to essentially ignore every Industry outside of Entertainment that VR impacts today, and that VR is targeted in the future. PCVR targets global infrastructure in a multi-industry world. That is the epitome of mainstream. Video games are childsplay in comparison.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 13,631 Valuable Player
    I wasn't here for the early days, but weren't the DK1 and DK2 "affordable?" (Dk1 was $300, and DK2 was $350).
    And when the CV1 price was released wasn't there a huge shitstorm from the community about "not being around the $350 ballpark" figure?

    It seems Oculus has a longer history of $300-$400 headsets, rather than the one time $600+ CV1.

    Well hang on, the DK1 and 2 weren't production headsets - they were meant for developers only (Palmer's words).

    As for CV2 - another thing they were clear on - somewhere between mobile phone and console lifespan.  Unfortunately, consoles have very long lifespans.

    I think you missed his point entirely. Just because they weren't production headsets doesn't negate what is being stated. Besides, do you really believe that only developers bought them? lol

    Check you tube. The Oculus DK's were used for gaming by gamers.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 13,631 Valuable Player
    edmg said:
    CrashFu said:
    This belief that technology will only ever become affordable if rich people buy it when it isn't?  Utterly absurd.  
    Where would computers be today if no 'elitists' were willing to pay $1,000,000+ for them fifty years ago?

    Your argument is the absurd one. And you've clearly never worked in consumer electronics. Back when I did, the high-end market was where we made the money that allowed us to develop new products; most of the revenue came from the low-end, but most of the profits came from the high-end where both price and margins were high.

    You are both correct based on the timeline of Tech in History. Yes, as you said, "back when I did" ... back when people walked to school, uphill, both ways.
    :p

    However, in modern times we can use the evolution of the smart phones as a good example. While once upon a time a single cell phone was pricey as hell, what drove the price of smart phones down is the fact that mobile computing was made affordable to those with a middle and lower class income. Facebook has proven what CrashFu stated to be a real truth. The price of the Rift CV1 was never as costly as the Vive, and sure as hell less than the Pimax 5K/8K. Yet the price of the Rift has continued to drop, and now Rift-S along with Quest are launching at affordable prices.

    So just because a caveman paid 1-million furs for the first DOS-based computer back when Dinosaurs walked the Earth, doesn't mean that today, in modern times, technology is unable to become affordable independent of the influence of wealthy consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,712
    Project 2501
    Zenbane said
    Mradr said:
    That is the thing though - that WONT happen with PCVR - PCVR is high end - not main stream.

    This is wrong. And I'm sure we'll argue for 10 pages over it. That's okay, I'm ready!

    Your perspective is purely from an Entertainment standpoint. Which means your perspective is limited in scope to a single Industry. Whereas VR, much like all Information Technology, is part of a global infrastructure that spans nearly every single Industry that can ever be conceived. Far beyond mere entertainment. Your argument attempts to pigeon hold VR.

    I'll give one example: Corporate Enterprise Applications.

    Something like GO and Quest - which are Stand Alone VR Devices - force a Company to create and publish VR Applications that must be installed on external hardware to function (the storage that physically exists on GO/Quest). This is immensely limiting the capabilities of how VR can extend the internal operations infrastructure of an organization. Enterprise Applications exist on the Internal Network of an organization, since they often need to connect to multiple internal Data Stores - usually separated geographically across a global network. The only way to allow an Enterprise VR Application to function in this environment is if the VR Hardware can work off a Workstation.

    There is nothing more mainstream than Windows-based Workstations at every major company in every First Word Company on Earth.

    Being able to build and deploy Windows-based applications to these Workstations and hooking up something like Rift-S is the single-most beneficial way to bring VR to the Mainstream world where it counts most. There is nothing more mainstream than bringing VR to the workplace, and we're already well on our way to doing that now. But VR "enthusiasts" (I use that term loosely here) who go online to VR Forums tend to limit their perspective to Entertainment Media and Video Games. As if VR is somehow that limited in scope.

    For anyone to say that "PCVR is high-end, not mainstream" is to essentially ignore every Industry outside of Entertainment that VR impacts today, and that VR is targeted in the future. PCVR targets global infrastructure in a multi-industry world. That is the epitome of mainstream. Video games are childsplay in comparison.
    Mradr is right in my opinion because he is talking about entertainment and social mainstream which is what oculus and Facebook is all about. Mainstream for industry especially medical is a whole different ballpark. High end makes more sense for those industries. You do bring up good points but most members are here to talk about entertainment. Pcvr for the masses will not become mainstream entertainment but standalone with possibly pc capabilities in one unit will.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    Zenbane said:
    Mradr said:
    That is the thing though - that WONT happen with PCVR - PCVR is high end - not main stream.

    Something like GO and Quest - which are Stand Alone VR Devices - force a Company to create and publish VR Applications that must be installed on external hardware to function (the storage that physically exists on GO/Quest). This is immensely limiting the capabilities of how VR can extend the internal operations infrastructure of an organization. Enterprise Applications exist on the Internal Network of an organization, since they often need to connect to multiple internal Data Stores - usually separated geographically across a global network. The only way to allow an Enterprise VR Application to function in this environment is if the VR Hardware can work off a Workstation.

    Actually - this is my point with number two:
    2) The lack of software compare to what there is for flat screen gaming. The lack of production software compare to flat screen.

    VR needs to grow - NOT just from gaming - but as a whole community. Limiting price to a set of limited features is NOT the way to go and that is what we are seeing with Rift S personally because of the limited specs. Oculus is REALLY limiting their total focus and scope of the market that needs just not cheap hardware - but high end hardware as well. 

    From an IT stand point of enterprise is just how BIG can you SCALE with as low of a RISK as you can. More or less - the goal is to keep it under control with little important data on end point devices as possible. In most cases - remove the need for the workstation as much as possible as well. This way if the end point dies - it doesn't remove data and if it gets infected - it doesn't take out the rest of the business. This is where enterprise is going in terms of cloud base centralize management and control. On a workstation I could deploy any apps, setup any security settings, and control what users can do what where and when and what information I allow access to all while keeping everything backup and secure from people that don't even know that the CD tray is NOT used as the coffee holder.

    Devices like GO and Quest are actually the way to go in terms of the end point client not having much control on how the device functions while if they can get software to allow centralize management would be the best option for enterprise users. As far as what we will pay - it really depends on the need. I've paid 1000s of dollars in software because it would take way too many man hours to do it other wise. Super high end makes sense here because we need more control than a normal customer will need. At the same time - we don't need them messing with it on unknown hardware we don't control - so workstations sometimes are not the best example of a what we would consider viable. 

    As for what is consider mainstream - there are many ways to look at what is consider mainstream - sure - but for the scope of this topic I limited it just to the scope of what devices people used for gaming in terms of entertainment and used the number one online store as a reference to what they say most users use in terms of not just flat screen gaming but also VR. As I said in the other post - it might not 100% reflect everything - but it should give us a decent picture to look at - at least as far as getting a basic understanding what is out there.

    Right now, VR is not going good on the PC side of things in terms of only hitting less than 1% of the total market that could hit up to 20% base on the number of GPUs that could support VR. The most use card in this case is the 1060 at 15% (looking at Oculus hardware view point it seems to hold up as well) with the next highest card the 1050ti at 9%. In reflection though - the mainstream also shows that more users out there doesn't even have a PC that could run VR in the first place let alone have the money or knowledge to build a PC and deal with any troubleshooting that comes with it. It's the number one reason why people choose a console over a PC in the first place - they just want it to "just work". With that said - your mainstream isn't PCVR - its the PC group that doesn't have a good enough PC in the first place reflecting to what I said before - that the entry into PCVR is the PC not the headset. That 80% sum of people is your mainstream and the other 20% (you and me included) are actually the enthusiasts of PC at least when it comes to flat screen hardware.

    In the enterprise world, unless you really need it to do your job, we wont be supplying workstations to just anyone - what we will supply is just a desktop computer that can just do your basic Word and Excel along with your POS software and marketing tools. There is little reason to stick everyone with a powerful enough GPU let alone the money it would take to even do such a thing. This is why at least for enterprise we be more into what the GO and Quest offers than what the Rift S would as it is built all in one. If I am on the other hand, it better be worth the value we are wanting to get out of the workstation + the headset so low cost hardware isn't the way to go here. That is why we see devices in the upper 1000s because they have a NEED for high stats and features than what we have for customer base VR. For schools - GO and Quest again would be the better option just because a workstation for each student would be more costly than just limiting the base value down to what Quest and GO can give instead along with the control etc etc etc.

    Over all this is why Quest is for the mainstream and not the Rift S and why saying the Rift S is for mainstream is just silly. Windows OS has NOTHING to do with VR going mainstream or does it have any meaning to what enterprise would rather have.

    Here is the thing though - High end for customers isn't the same for enterprise. I have a feeling that is where the mix up is happening and we see users posting how high end COST too much when they are looking at enterprise level of devices. Granted, customer devices can still scale that high - but so far the ones that do - usually follow up with the idea that they are NOT JUST selling to the customer market - but enterprise level of people looking for something with high specs that no one else has as well. Pimax and Vive Pro are good examples of that. Now, is that something high end customers are willing to pay? Well depends - but mostly the answer is NO. Anything over the 1000s mark is going to have to be special and for the avg Joe looking to get into VR wont be understanding the reason why it is price soo much. Instead they're going to look at price to specs and between the high end and low end. Something that can give them a great value for their duck. Then again, you might have Joe+ that has a little more money to spend and has tested VR out before and would like to get something a bit higher quality than what he has used too making for almost 5 different markets out there. 

    As for prices in terms of the two main headsets HTC and Oculus - when all things are the same price is the only major thing left to choose on. This is why Oculus is winning vs HTC - but as I pointed out before - just because it's winning between the two headsets - its not winning total VR sells reward. VR still is less than 1% and base off the chart - WMR is eating a good 10% of that 1% and HTC still on 40%. Over all Oculus is only 50% of a 1%. That over all isn't a good thing. Oculus, if price was the only reason why people didn't jump into VR already, then there is something else holding these people back OR they are doing a horrible job over. If Rift S follow suit and even drop another 100$  would only mean a clime of around another 25% or 1.2% (assuming Oculus has slightly higher numbers because not everyone owns steam or took the survey). How are we going to call that win over all?

    There is a reason why they are making the Quest and they put so much time into it. PCVR just isn't going to be the mainstream hope we all want it to be - its going to be Quest and GO at the end of the day. Even for enterprise users. With that said - if they are ONLY going to market PCVR lines with a low cost headset - that is only going to further delay any hardware that might actually turn things around just as my eye tracking example:

    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.

    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.

    Witch goes to show that there would still be a reason to market and sell a higher cost unit if it means that it can support more hardware with a hardware solution to bring the over all hardware requirements down while bring a huge jump in specs. Something like this would be 6+ years out instead of maybe 3+ years out. That seems totally silly to me if we're on the edge of just an advancement like that. Why not just sell to both markets and call it a day? Time is more costly than a few dollars. Again, this is just an example - but I just find it super silly for them not to at least come out and say they are going to do both - but instead we got "no one wants to pay above 450+". That basically is saying we're not going over that price point so this example becomes very real fast.


    We need more information from Oculus going forward here - right now there are just lots of questions left open and they need to state their plans going forward. Without doing so - people might go off and look at other headsets. I know a number of users already on this forum are looking at Index just because they are itching for something a bit higher end. I love Oculus software - but I wouldn't mind planing my shit out if at all possible to keep inside the Oculus platform as well. IF they are not planing to release a mid high range device for customers - then so be it..

    I don't think the Rift S is a bad PCVR headset - it offers and meets a number of things that new users were having problems with and the low cost starting will make it a good value after it drops another 100$ for new users into VR. As of right now though - it just not mainstream VR and nor will it ever be. PCVR will continue to always be mid to high end in terms of what it offers from a hardware resources for software stance - but never will be that mainstream.

    At the same time - with them working with LVO -  It sounds like they are maybe testing the waters to see and work with other companies much like how WMR base design was used and created by other partners. In a way this sounds like a good thing as it might mean they will open their designs for other companies to take part in to create PCVR headsets. Less time Oculus has to spend researching, testing, demoing, manufacturing, dealing with support, etc if they can just sell the LC for their technology scope (location, eye tracking, controllers, software, store access, etc) and then everyone has access to their software and store. They could even go a far as to give kick backs on their stores back to their partners for every unit they sell and buys software on the store. Win win for both companies. Possible win for the end customer as well as it should open the doors to scale options much like we see with WMR right now from super low cost headsets to higher end ones that cost a bit more. Funny, enough, the one that cost the most - sells the best:) with everyone saying it just has the best specs for what you are paying for.

    At the end of the day - most people want to stay in the Oculus community. They don't want to look else where if possible. They want to stay with the friends they made and continue working with the same group to push VR forward. To say that other options are the best way around this is just disheartening. We just want Oculus to be the very best it can be and there for will push different ideas around. We want VR to grow not just for PCVR but ALL OF VR. All customers should be value and that at the end of the day - the VR community is what will support and make the over all VR industry strong going forward of tells of how we won against that VR dragon.

    More or less - what I am saying - Oculus does need to help Joe out into getting into VR - but Joe+ would also like to keep playing with Joe on the same platform - just at a higher spec headset that is still price at a reasonable value to include the extra stuff if we can.


    Ok o.o I think I am done writing this page - your go - if I make changes now it should be for spelling errors or just correcting grammar/understanding on what I mean.

  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 1,795
    Project 2501
    Both sides are right.

    Definitely need to bring the average joe into VR, so agree there.

    however we already have a plethora of other companies doing that, we don’t need ‘everybody’ doing that.

    You can drown in the number of affordable mediocre headsets on the market.

    Oculus were supposed to be the pioneers. A company that gave the others something to aspire to. 

    The quest is fantastic I am sure but the Rift S is just competent.

     I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?

    Losing Oculus as that champion is a blow to VRs future.

    My hope is valve will now fill those shoes. The last thing we need is them to start churning out more mediocrity.







  • dburnedburne Posts: 1,980 Valuable Player
    Both sides are right.

    Definitely need to bring the average joe into VR, so agree there.

    however we already have a plethora of other companies doing that, we don’t need ‘everybody’ doing that.

    You can drown in the number of affordable mediocre headsets on the market.

    Oculus were supposed to be the pioneers. A company that gave the others something to aspire to. 

    The quest is fantastic I am sure but the Rift S is just competent.

     I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?

    Losing Oculus as that champion is a blow to VRs future.

    My hope is valve will now fill those shoes. The last thing we need is them to start churning out more mediocrity.

    Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case|
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,779 Valuable Player
    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.
    In Which cases the naysayers about oculus stores were correct then .... Don't buy apps from oculus or when they get behind you will be left faffing about with 3rd party hacks. No one (afaik) is complaining about the existence of rift s or catering for the main stream  but a company the size of Facebook must surely be capable of supporting a range of products (even if licenced out).! 
    Lenovo make the rift s. I am sure they would happily make a rift X too. And I am not talking about a £1300 device either ...... I don't think a £700 hmd with adjustable IPD and improved fov is outrageous. And besides you are being a bit selfish imo. Oculus themselves are admitting people at the extremes of ipd are no longer supported by oculus. Think about that..... Oculus sold software to preoole and are now saying sorry we no longer supply a device you can use comfortably....... Sorry about that!
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,712
    Project 2501
    Both sides are right.

    Definitely need to bring the average joe into VR, so agree there.

    however we already have a plethora of other companies doing that, we don’t need ‘everybody’ doing that.

    You can drown in the number of affordable mediocre headsets on the market.

    Oculus were supposed to be the pioneers. A company that gave the others something to aspire to. 

    The quest is fantastic I am sure but the Rift S is just competent.

     I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?

    Losing Oculus as that champion is a blow to VRs future.

    My hope is valve will now fill those shoes. The last thing we need is them to start churning out more mediocrity.







    You and some others will never get it. Mradr says what I have been saying for a long time but says it better. You say your disappointed because oculus was,supposed to be the pioneer. Someone had to be the adult in the room to get things going. I say, thanks oculus. What your doing is our best hope for the future of VR in order for it to mature and go maistream wise. That will equal greater content and the hardware upgrading for the masses. Palmer said you can give a high end VR headset for free to everyone in the world and VR wouldn't take off any faster. He is so right. It is more important  for vr headsets to get much smaller and lighter as well tech wise than to do other things. The quest is going to be fantastic and sell well but if it were let's say a third the size and weight it would sell a hell of a lot better. That will happen in the future but oculus is doing what it will take, so there is a future.
Sign In or Register to comment.