04-12-2019 02:53 PM
04-14-2019 03:34 AM
Luciferous said:
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.
04-14-2019 04:00 AM
04-14-2019 04:12 AM
inovator said:
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.
04-14-2019 04:31 AM
You've lost me a bit with the store and getting behind... as far as I can tell, the Rift-S is intended for Oculus to move ahead.... much more so than with a higher priced HMD, and not just that, but in selling more HMDs, they will instil more confidence in developers to produce more software, not just for the Oculus store but for the Steam Store, in either case, additional faffing isn't what's going to happen. It's an interesting idea that allowing a company to do this as being selfish. I would argue that that point of view is the opposite.
bigmike20vt 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.
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!
04-14-2019 04:56 AM
Luciferous said:
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.
04-14-2019 05:43 AM
DaftnDirect said:
You've lost me a bit with the store and getting behind... as far as I can tell, the Rift-S is intended for Oculus to move ahead.... much more so than with a higher priced HMD, and not just that, but in selling more HMDs, they will instil more confidence in developers to produce more software, not just for the Oculus store but for the Steam Store, in either case, additional faffing isn't what's going to happen. It's an interesting idea that allowing a company to do this as being selfish. I would argue that that point of view is the opposite.
bigmike20vt 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.
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!
We can all argue over what headset could be produced, at what price and with what features... but if you're saying that nobody's complaining about the Rift-S itself, then ok, even though I'm not convinced ok, we can park that.
That just leaves what high-end headset could be produced. We seem to be in agreement that high-high-end (let's agree that's £1300 isn't the right thing for Oculus but medium-high-end is ok (£700). Fine, I'll go with that, but I'm not going to get on a high-horse and say Oculus are abandoning me because they aren't doing that. That would be selfish. (and I'm not accusing you of that bigmike but it's definitely a sentiment that's being expressed).
@kojack , I understand your analogy with the digital cameras. I waited many years, avoiding early digitals until I felt they were good enough to replace 35mm. Eventually I went with a 20D cos at £1200 (I think) it was just about affordable but pretty much equivalent in quality to the 35mm I had.
But there are some fundamental differences with digital cameras. There's no dependence on an ecosystem, in the way that VR has a dependence on software sales. As far as I know the likes of Canon, Nikon and Sony profited on all cameras sold regardless of specification. I have a feeling Oculus loss-lead or at least sell at cost in order to build base users. I have a feeling the same is true for the software they fund also.
I just think it's easy for everyone to pick and choose price points and specifications that we think should be met but we're not the ones doing it for real.
04-14-2019 05:52 AM
04-14-2019 06:42 AM
04-14-2019 06:50 AM
04-14-2019 06:53 AM
RedRizla said:
I think this is all going to come down to the price of the Valve index and it's specs. I also blame Nvida for pricing a Geforce 2080 Ti at £1000 plus. It's a shame RTX tech has come along when all we need is a cheaper Graphics card capable of higher resolutions.
I just wish Nvida would bring out a Graphics card that has the power of a Geforce 2080 Ti without RTX for those who aren't bothered about it.