High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath - Page 3 — 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

1356714

Comments

  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,301
    Project 2501
    edited April 14
    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.
    I don't think you fully understand what Mradr is saying. He's arguing for a higher end Rift and to move the mainstream aspirations to mobile. Personally that's what I thought Oculus was going to do and leave the Rift as the showcase platform but I'm not bitter about the direction just disappointed. Someone else will pick up the slack. 
    Also I think you have Palmer's comment misconstrued, he was saying if you gave everybody a rift cv1 it still wouldn't be Mass market because the tech wasnt good enough yet. The retention was really low after like a month people quit using it despite having the machine to run it already. IE he was arguing for advancements in Tech. 
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,631 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    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!
    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.

    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.
    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)
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,696 Valuable Player
    edited April 14

    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.

    Unless you're referring to those lame phone-insert VR toys, I'm not sure who this "plethora" of other companies is.

    Right now, the only companies I see making decent entry-level devices are Oculus and Sony,  and Oculus are the only ones making one for PC.

    Every other company that has dipped its toes into VR products (again, excluding those silly phone-insert toys) has focused exclusively on making expensive, high-end models.  (Or in the case of the first Vive, a needlessly expensive parallel to CV1.)

     I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?
    I think that you and others are really underestimating just how much of an improvement the Rift-S' graphics are, over CV1.  On paper, it may only sound like a few hundred more points of resolution each way, but it also has significantly better lenses and 50% more subpixel density (which means the effective resolution, the overall clarity of the image, is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than CV1)

    Perhaps you missed the article by a certain flight-sim dev who was talking about how Rift-S's graphics are so sharp, he could easily read every instrument panel in his sim cockpit?   That's a big step up from CV1, where you can't even read most menus in Subnautica.
    Tips for fixing / reducing Rift-S issues:
    • Make sure your graphics drivers and windows updates are completely up-to-date.
    • Disable USB power saving on any ports you'll be plugging Rift-S into.
    • Access Windows "Power and Sleep" settings, Advanced Settings, and disable any other automatic power-saving.
    • Be patient for fixes from Oculus.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,788 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    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!
    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.

    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.
    Perhaps I didn't express myself properly. My issue is I am worried the rift s physically is not going to work for me. I have my IPD set to max on my CV1 ... And if I am honest I would expand it a bit more if I could. 
    So (perhaps selfish was the wrong word) but once my rift dies (right headphone is already glued together and am on my 2nd facial insert already) I will end up with a bunch of software on a store  with potentially  NO headset officially supported for me to use.
    Anyone saying "stop complaining rift s works for most people " is missing a big problem imo.
    This is exactly why many of my purchases were made on steam. Instill have probably £500 with of apps on there tho.
    A more quest like design would definitely have been more usable and would have locked of fewer people imo
    Sorry if I am getting a bit ranty but I am just getting a bit tired of people essentially accusing people like me of being moaners just because they have an average ipd that oculus choose to support and screw those who are SOOL.
    Some have.said ipd of 70 works however as far as I know this has been 15 min sessions. Oculus themselves admit they no longer supoort ipds as high as CV1 and iirc the max my CV1 goes to is 69 or 70 and I am hitting that now
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,631 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    OK bigmike, I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not totally sure if my IPD is within the Rift-S limits being 69, it's within the adjustment limits but outside the recommended limits as far as I can make out. So maybe it'll be ok, maybe not.

    I think I'm less pessimistic though in that I believe there will always be a choice of headset that best suits my needs and I'm also optimistic about OpenXR removing cross platform tie-ins.

    Maybe I'm just a glass half full bloke but it seems to me that things generally turn out better than most people say... when most people say it'll turn out bad.

    (Neville Chamberlain probably felt the same)
    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)
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 5,884 Valuable Player
    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.


  • LuluViBritanniaLuluViBritannia Posts: 453
    Trinity
    Ouch. That's literally the last thing I wanted to hear from Oculus (well, except for "we wont be making a Rift 2 at all").
    What now?
    - New Mixed Reality headsets aren't an option since they don't even bother upgrading their tracking system. I mean, it's just the major flaw of these headsets, why willingly keeping it as it is?
    - HTC has never really been an option because of their prices. 
    - Valve... I don't get why so many people overhype their future headset when we know strictly nothing about it for now.
    - Pimax is a joke.

    Jeez, I really hate the direction the PCVR market has taken. So many actors from the computing industry, and none of them are able to make something as good as Oculus, which was a f*cking nobody in the industry before the Rift? Come on!
    Now my last hope is the Quest getting wireless connexion to computers. ALVR, I believe in you! It has to work, and it has to work well!
    Current VR results imo:
    - Great small apps. Great ports of bigger games.
    - Great VR-specific features. Not enough showcased!!!
    - Too many actors in the industry, the market is totally broken.


    My hopes for VR next gen:

    - Better ratio between visual quality and power needs. No more godrays and less SDE.
    - Full Body Tracking.


    "If you don't mind, do you want me to take you there? Where dreams come true."
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,301
    Project 2501
    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.


    Yep that's pretty much been my theme regarding Nvidia dating back to the Radeon 9800 pro days when ATI actually had the best GPU. In this day and age, any publically traded company that's all alone at the top is going to price gouge mercilessly. It's just the nature of shareholders wanting max profits and CEOs doing all they can to deliver it. Some private companies do the same though. Nvidia needs competition and I really hope Intel can put some screws to them and bring the prices back down. 
  • ChazmeisterChazmeister Posts: 534
    Neo
    Well I've already started buying VR games on Steam in preference to the Oculus store where they are available on both. I'm not keen on the specs of the Rift S (no headphones and no hardware IPD adjustment), and if my CV1 fails and I can no longer get a replacement then I'll probably jump ship to the Valve Index. And whilst the Oculus Store remains pretty much a closed ecosystem, I don't want to end up with loads of games on there I'll not be able to use or get the best out of by having to use programs like Revive.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    OK bigmike, I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not totally sure if my IPD is within the Rift-S limits being 69, it's within the adjustment limits but outside the recommended limits as far as I can make out. So maybe it'll be ok, maybe not.

    I think I'm less pessimistic though in that I believe there will always be a choice of headset that best suits my needs and I'm also optimistic about OpenXR removing cross platform tie-ins.

    Maybe I'm just a glass half full bloke but it seems to me that things generally turn out better than most people say... when most people say it'll turn out bad.

    (Neville Chamberlain probably felt the same)
    I would agree with this - but as Bigmike said - if you bought your software from Oculus (short of using a 3rd party program) you are out of the ecosystem you was just part of. People like Oculus environment, they like the software, the people they played with, etc, etc - all this really means is they want WANT Oculus to do better. This isn't cries of "I am moving to HTC!" - it's more of a cry for Oculus to get their shit together so we can keep buying their products and working with the same VR community we kind of grew up with the last 3 year or longer. Get my point bro?

    I rather be arranging with Zen than some dum ass that can't even understand that 2k, 2k per eye is not 4k - it's still 2k. I rather still keep writing M-Walls here than some place else. I mean I can still do that - but just wont be as fun not on the same hardware with everyone else. 

    So I mean, yea we can move on to use other hardware and we have the option always at the door step, but we still want Oculus to do better than deal with what is out there instead.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,352 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    Ouch. That's literally the last thing I wanted to hear from Oculus (well, except for "we wont be making a Rift 2 at all").
    What now?
    ....
    - Valve... I don't get why so many people overhype their future headset when we know strictly nothing about it for now.
    .....

    Had you ever considered that why so many people are excited about the system is that they have had the chance to use it and even take it apart - but because of Valves affiliation to non-disclosures and contractual silence clauses, they cant speak openly about the system, but have to be vague?

    Jeez, I really hate the direction the PCVR market has taken. So many actors from the computing industry, and none of them are able to make something as good as Oculus, which was a f*cking nobody in the industry before the Rift? Come on!
    .....

    Okay, I see your passion - but I think its important to remember the work that SONY had done with the Glasstron and the HMZ, long before the DK1, DK2 and CV1 - and that those advances are even now being used by Oculus/Lenovo in the Rift-S!

    The reality is that Oculus did force the price down thanks to Facebook deep pockets, but its is SONY that has actually established a market hold. That said the number of Samsung GearVR's that were given away (as well as sold) established a market, but now with the Samsung deal "redefined" it will be interesting to see if it is GO or the new Samsung Standalone that takes hold of that installed base?

    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
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,416 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!
    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.

    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.
    Perhaps I didn't express myself properly. My issue is I am worried the rift s physically is not going to work for me. I have my IPD set to max on my CV1 ... And if I am honest I would expand it a bit more if I could. 
    So (perhaps selfish was the wrong word) but once my rift dies (right headphone is already glued together and am on my 2nd facial insert already) I will end up with a bunch of software on a store  with potentially  NO headset officially supported for me to use.
    Anyone saying "stop complaining rift s works for most people " is missing a big problem imo.
    This is exactly why many of my purchases were made on steam. Instill have probably £500 with of apps on there tho.
    A more quest like design would definitely have been more usable and would have locked of fewer people imo
    Sorry if I am getting a bit ranty but I am just getting a bit tired of people essentially accusing people like me of being moaners just because they have an average ipd that oculus choose to support and screw those who are SOOL.
    Some have.said ipd of 70 works however as far as I know this has been 15 min sessions. Oculus themselves admit they no longer supoort ipds as high as CV1 and iirc the max my CV1 goes to is 69 or 70 and I am hitting that now

    I wouldn't worry about the IPD so much. Yes, people at Pax East had 15 minute sessions, but before that members of the press and prominent YouTubers had 1-2 hour sessions without having any issues.

    So I think you might be okay, big head :p
    "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
  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 1,845
    Project 2501
    CrashFu 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.

    Unless you're referring to those lame phone-insert VR toys, I'm not sure who this "plethora" of other companies is.

    Right now, the only companies I see making decent entry-level devices are Oculus and Sony,  and Oculus are the only ones making one for PC.

    Every other company that has dipped its toes into VR products (again, excluding those silly phone-insert toys) has focused exclusively on making expensive, high-end models.  (Or in the case of the first Vive, a needlessly expensive parallel to CV1.)

     I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?
    I think that you and others are really underestimating just how much of an improvement the Rift-S' graphics are, over CV1.  On paper, it may only sound like a few hundred more points of resolution each way, but it also has significantly better lenses and 50% more subpixel density (which means the effective resolution, the overall clarity of the image, is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than CV1)

    Perhaps you missed the article by a certain flight-sim dev who was talking about how Rift-S's graphics are so sharp, he could easily read every instrument panel in his sim cockpit?   That's a big step up from CV1, where you can't even read most menus in Subnautica.

    CrashFu 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.

    Unless you're referring to those lame phone-insert VR toys, I'm not sure who this "plethora" of other companies is.

    Right now, the only companies I see making decent entry-level devices are Oculus and Sony,  and Oculus are the only ones making one for PC.

    Every other company that has dipped its toes into VR products (again, excluding those silly phone-insert toys) has focused exclusively on making expensive, high-end models.  (Or in the case of the first Vive, a needlessly expensive parallel to CV1.)

     I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?
    I think that you and others are really underestimating just how much of an improvement the Rift-S' graphics are, over CV1.  On paper, it may only sound like a few hundred more points of resolution each way, but it also has significantly better lenses and 50% more subpixel density (which means the effective resolution, the overall clarity of the image, is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than CV1)

    Perhaps you missed the article by a certain flight-sim dev who was talking about how Rift-S's graphics are so sharp, he could easily read every instrument panel in his sim cockpit?   That's a big step up from CV1, where you can't even read most menus in Subnautica

    No I am not underestimating the Rift S. I am basing it on reviews, most saying if you have a CV1 it’s not really worth upgrading. Most are saying in summary 'Meh' its alright.

    If you think there is only two people making entry level VR headsets then I think your google is broken. 

    If I buy a headset I expect to have it for at least two years, I have had the CV1 for three and it has done me proud and worth every penny of the 800 pounds I probably spent on it including sensors.

    If you are happy to pay 400 pounds for technology that's going to be out of date by Christmas then best of luck with that.

    I would prefer to pay 700 for something that is going to last me as long as the CV1 did.
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,744
    Project 2501
    Reading that reviewer article that talks about how the flight panel is so much easier to read etc. That alone makes the upgrade worthwhile. Better noticeable visuals with more detail and less pixilation. Unless u are going to a headset that's better in that department why would anyone recommend not going from the rift to the rift s. That's doesn't make sense.
  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 1,845
    Project 2501
    edited April 14
    Well it makes no sense if you only ever buy from Oculus. I hope the index kicks Rift S ass, otherwise I fear I may be doomed for three years of mediocre VR gaming. 
  • LuluViBritanniaLuluViBritannia Posts: 453
    Trinity
    Had you ever considered that why so many people are excited about the system is that they have had the chance to use it and even take it apart

    Do you mean that all the people praising the Valve Index actually had the chance to use it? I highly doubt it ^^'. For now, all I heard was rumors on the specs and people stupidly believing in those rumors. As of today, the Valve Index barely exists officially. When the speecs are released, then, there will be matter to be hyped... if said specs are good, of course.

     its important to remember the work that SONY had done with the Glasstron and the HMZ

    Hum, no, it's not. Those headsets aren't part of the current VR ecosystems. And they aren't at the same level as the others in terms of specs.
    Sony did nothing for the PC VR market. I do respect them for their PSVR ecosystem though.
    Current VR results imo:
    - Great small apps. Great ports of bigger games.
    - Great VR-specific features. Not enough showcased!!!
    - Too many actors in the industry, the market is totally broken.


    My hopes for VR next gen:

    - Better ratio between visual quality and power needs. No more godrays and less SDE.
    - Full Body Tracking.


    "If you don't mind, do you want me to take you there? Where dreams come true."
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,352 Valuable Player
    LuluViBritannia said:
    ....
    Do you mean that all the people praising the Valve Index actually had the chance to use it? I highly doubt it ^^'. 

    I think you know that I said many and not all  B) - it will be great when its in the hands of the majority though. Some unfiltered feedback on this will help all understand and not being under embargo for many will be a weight off.

    For now, all I heard was rumors on the specs and people stupidly believing in those rumors. As of today, the Valve Index barely exists officially. When the speecs are released, then, there will be matter to be hyped... if said specs are good, of course.

    Yeah, hype has shaped this phase of VR more than any other, and like in 1997 the bubble has burst and the consumer wants reality rather than the hypetrain - I see your passionate point. I just wonder how much specs will be trumped by content in this part of the race?

    Hum, no, it's not. Those headsets aren't part of the current VR ecosystems. And they aren't at the same level as the others in terms of specs.
    Sony did nothing for the PC VR market. I do respect them for their PSVR ecosystem though.


    Okay, I understand your point, but I do not see these aspects working in isolation - IMHO I think that the Sony has had a lot more influence on the VR scene than many like to admit, and the appearance of the Halo Strap (a blast from 1996) on the Rift-S came as a uncomfortable reminder. That Sony has cooled its future PSVR2 investment till the PS5 has been launched shows that they see the next-generation of VR this phase round coming more in a 2022 time-frame - which will be interesting. Maybe by then with Quest success under their belt the reinvigorated Oculus will consider 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
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 5,884 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    Well it makes no sense if you only ever buy from Oculus. I hope the index kicks Rift S ass, otherwise I fear I may be doomed for three years of mediocre VR gaming. 

    Careful what you wish for is all I'll say. If it does kick arse and Rift -S doesn't sell well, then you can kiss good bye to the continued kick ass Oculus PC -VR games. Most of the steam VR games are shite IMHO. Where are all the Valve PC -VR games btw?
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,352 Valuable Player
    It is going to be really hard for Indie and AAA game developers to consider their future VR development strategy:

    Do they support the Quest ecosystem.
    Do they support the Valve ecosystem.
    Do they create for independents like Pico and Samsung with their Standalones.
    Do they go high-end or do they go mobileVR (standalone) and with that support the best performance (Snapdragon 845 or higher), or work to backward convert their game to support SD835?
    Do they continue to support CV1 or VIVE?

    Or in reality, do they wait to see if Sony releases VR for PS5?
    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
  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 1,845
    Project 2501
    edited April 14
    RedRizla said:
    Well it makes no sense if you only ever buy from Oculus. I hope the index kicks Rift S ass, otherwise I fear I may be doomed for three years of mediocre VR gaming. 

    Careful what you wish for is all I'll say. If it does kick arse and Rift -S doesn't sell well, then you can kiss good bye to the continued kick ass Oculus PC -VR games. Most of the steam VR games are shite IMHO. Where are all the Valve PC -VR games btw?

    Well you can blame that on Oculus not me. That is what happens when you neglect the market that helped put you on the map in the first place.

    I would hold a wake though for Lone Echo. :)

    Sometimes a company gets complacent and needs a kick up the arse.

  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,631 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    Mradr said:
    OK bigmike, I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not totally sure if my IPD is within the Rift-S limits being 69, it's within the adjustment limits but outside the recommended limits as far as I can make out. So maybe it'll be ok, maybe not.

    I think I'm less pessimistic though in that I believe there will always be a choice of headset that best suits my needs and I'm also optimistic about OpenXR removing cross platform tie-ins.

    Maybe I'm just a glass half full bloke but it seems to me that things generally turn out better than most people say... when most people say it'll turn out bad.

    (Neville Chamberlain probably felt the same)
    I would agree with this - but as Bigmike said - if you bought your software from Oculus (short of using a 3rd party program) you are out of the ecosystem you was just part of. People like Oculus environment, they like the software, the people they played with, etc, etc - all this really means is they want WANT Oculus to do better. This isn't cries of "I am moving to HTC!" - it's more of a cry for Oculus to get their shit together so we can keep buying their products and working with the same VR community we kind of grew up with the last 3 year or longer. Get my point bro?

    I rather be arranging with Zen than some dum ass that can't even understand that 2k, 2k per eye is not 4k - it's still 2k. I rather still keep writing M-Walls here than some place else. I mean I can still do that - but just wont be as fun not on the same hardware with everyone else. 

    So I mean, yea we can move on to use other hardware and we have the option always at the door step, but we still want Oculus to do better than deal with what is out there instead.
    Do you think OpenXR will happen though? My personal opinion is that it will, and is more likely to have Oculus' backing if they've decided that they're happy for other manufacturers to have a free run at the high-end market. I'm pretty sure they'd want to welcome all users to their storefront. And if that's the case, there'll be no need to leave their community... and we can all continue to argue with the people who are intelligent enough to argue back ;)

    But yes, even though it may sound like it, I don't want people to think that I'm an apologist for Oculus not making high-end. So maybe it's best if I don't comment further than this post on the subject.

    I'm also very reluctant to place my trust in another manufacturer to do high-end right, including price. So yes, I'm disappointed if Oculus don't. Very disappointed.

    I'm just optimistic about what the Rift-S will do in terms of the end result being more good software. And even though we shouldn't need to trade off high-end hardware against good software... if that's the choice that Oculus have decided to present us with... I'll live with it.

    Edit: I should just add that my disappointment should really be delayed until this time next year, when GPUs will hopefully be available to run high-end properly and validate my my disappointment.
    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)
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,744
    Project 2501
    Had you ever considered that why so many people are excited about the system is that they have had the chance to use it and even take it apart

    Do you mean that all the people praising the Valve Index actually had the chance to use it? I highly doubt it ^^'. For now, all I heard was rumors on the specs and people stupidly believing in those rumors. As of today, the Valve Index barely exists officially. When the speecs are released, then, there will be matter to be hyped... if said specs are good, of course.

     its important to remember the work that SONY had done with the Glasstron and the HMZ

    Hum, no, it's not. Those headsets aren't part of the current VR ecosystems. And they aren't at the same level as the others in terms of specs.
    Sony did nothing for the PC VR market. I do respect them for their PSVR ecosystem though.
    To say that Sony isn't any influence on the pc vr market makes me lol. It may not be at the same level as far as tracking but is close as far as visuals. My brother like I owns a rift and when he tried my Playstation vr he thought the visuals were close. Slightly more blur but less pixels and a fov that feels larger. It is very underestimated. True it won't influence how many people do pc vr but vr in general yes. And Sony having sold 4.5 million headsets may influence a chunk of those people to buy the quest.
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,744
    Project 2501
    He'll blade was mentioned that it wasn't worth an upgrade just to play it. Agreed.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 5,884 Valuable Player
    I'm just curious to know if we have had some bullshit thrown our way by Oculus. They kept saying they weren't abandoning PC -VR, but they have certainly made it look like it's not a priority by leaving Rift -S to Lenovo. Now there is no talk of a Rift 2 in development and that's a big change from what they were saying last year. Are we to believe that Rift -S is now Rift 2?

    I get that cheaper headsets means more sales and more sales means devs will create software, but why all the talk of half dome, eye tracking last, and now reel it all back in like it was never spoken about? So I tack it that a Rift 2 is not in development as of now is that correct?

    I also see people's point about creating for a cheaper market, but just like televisions there should also be a place for catering for a higher end on too. Maybe Oculus should be looking to cater for both the cheaper and more expensive headsets market, just like Samsung, LG and Sony do with their televisions. 
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 13,693 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    I'm just curious to know if we have had some bullshit thrown our way by Oculus. They kept saying they weren't abandoning PC -VR, but they have certainly made it look like it's not a priority by leaving Rift -S to Lenovo. Now there is no talk of a Rift 2 in development and that's a big change from what they were saying last year. Are we to believe that Rift -S is now Rift 2?

    You are only talking Hardware in all of that. PCVR is both hardware and software. Facebook and Oculus are releasing great new native PCVR experiences.

    And just because Oculus partnered with Lenovo doesn't mean, by default, that they have abandoned anything. Valve partnered with HTC for Vive, right? Partnerships are fine.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 5,884 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    I'm still looking to get a Rift -S due to all the great Oculus games, but I do wish they would have created both a cheaper & highend headset for those who own something like a Geforce 2080Ti. I don't know at what cost to Oculus that would be though, if they manufactured 2 headsets with different displays etc.

    Edit: I just look at it that someone with a Geforce 2080Ti isn't going to be looking at a Rift -S, if there's a better headset with a higher resolution.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,352 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    I'm just curious to know if we have had some bullshit thrown our way by Oculus. They kept saying they weren't abandoning PC -VR, but they have certainly made it look like it's not a priority by leaving Rift -S to Lenovo. Now there is no talk of a Rift 2 in development and that's a big change from what they were saying last year. Are we to believe that Rift -S is now Rift 2?
    sions. 

    I see your point @RedRizla and have brought up the same topic in the past.
    If you have dealt in anyway with consumer manufacturer and marketing you know that "the next gen" is a lollipop that are fed to the customer base to keep them loyal. I have no doubt that there are multiple next-hardware-revision designs in the files of Oculus, ranging from eye-tracked to half-dome inspired platforms. That this was suspended for the Lenovo partnership leads us to the reality. The commitment to release a CV2 any time soon, or to place the focus on Standalone and then review from a later position. The VR community that expected to see CV2 this or next year will have to consider their position - while I would not be surprised (if Quest is a big success) we will see a CV2 glory project soon after, plicating the backlash to the Rift-S from some quarters.

    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
Sign In or Register to comment.