cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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

bigmike20vt
Visionary
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=3&hl=de&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=...

Pretty bleak reading imo excuse long link Google shortener not working on it
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂
401 REPLIES 401

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

inovator said:


There are members here that are in denial of what is happening and how Oculus is planning it's future. Time will show us all.



Don't start insulting forum members personally. Especially in your case. You're probably the least impactful voice, but you tend to be the first to try to ridicule others. Stick to the topic as best you can so that we can all maintain a healthy dialogue.

People are not necessarily in denial, they just have a different perspective. The concept of "different perspectives" isn't that hard to grasp.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

pyroth309 said:


Mradr said:


Unless they say something at F8 this year - I am not holding my breath for another 3 years just to find out:)


Yea, this, I could be dead in 3 years. Life's short and I've had too many people I know die unexpectedly.

Corporations regularly change directions and waste millions on R&D that never sees the light of day. Just because they showed off a prototype a year ago doesn't mean it's guaranteed to come out, especially with so much change among management. Hell the company I work for spent nearly 300 million on a project that never got completed and is nowhere near as large as Facebook.

Not saying Oculus won't come out with it, but I'm not confident they will either.



Well said, pyro.

My biggest take-away from all the recent news and shifting of Facebook/Oculus' direction in the VR Market is quite simple: They continue to respond to the market as necessary. There's no point in anyone (myself included) doubling-down on predictions. Because any prediction about any of these organizations (Valve, HTC, Microsoft, Facebook, Oculus) will always be at risk of falling flat due to the unpredictable nature of the market itself, and the ability for these organization's to respond to that unpredictability.

We heard from Carmack direct that Oculus GO was an "experiment" on how the market would react. They were all surprised with how well it did in the market. The market responded to GO far better than it did for both the Vive and Rift. So Facebook/Oculus did the only sensible thing when revenue and profit are a target goal: react.  Both Quest and Rift-S are the end-result of lessons learned coming out of low PCVR sales for all PCVR products from all competitors.

The mass consumer wants ease-of-use and mobility, with the best software experiences.

Now, if the market starts to show signs of a new need and demand over the next year, then sure... there's no reason to doubt that Facebook and Oculus won't respond again. If the market truly demands a next Gen headset, then we'll get it. For now, we have to deal with what the global market has been asking for over the past 3 years.

KoBak07
Protege
I still think it is a major misstep for FB for moving Oculus so drastically downwards for positioning their products as well as "realtive" to market quality.
To me having Lenovo to drive the development of the product is to me a big surprise. Why would a company like Oculus with their depth and experience dump this on a team, which has only brought to market products considered "junk" from a PCVR standpoint?
If this was the car business, to me it's like Audi deciding that market is too small to sell A4/6/8, then they would farm out their design and dev to Chevy who has been know to make "mediocrity", and start selling that as the flagship of their brand. Guess what, they DO have budget brands, which offer products which make tradeoffs in certain areas to hit different market segments. 
zi9zzdkfey6n.jpg

What is disappointing to me with the latest new from the Oculus camp, is that they are actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup, so the quality gap to their mobile VR is not that drastic.

I like the idea for mobile VR, and might pick one up for just viewing content on a higher res panel. But for gaming, what it offers will be to much below the immersion level I want out of VR, that I think it's pointless.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

KoBak07 said:

To me having Lenovo to drive the development of the product is to me a big surprise. Why would a company like Oculus with their depth and experience dump this on a team, which has only brought to market products considered "junk" from a PCVR standpoint?



It didn't seem to bother anyone that Valve turned to HTC, who has only brought to market products that are considered junk. HTC had a long standing relationship with financial loss year-after-year with the one thing they were supposed to do right: smart phones. So why partner with them for something bleeding edge?

People didn't complain about it then, and only served to make excuses as to why both Valve and HTC are somehow VR's "saviors."

Oculus forms one partnership with their PCVR headset and suddenly partnerships are evil.

Lenovo bought out IBM, and has turned more profit than HTC. If someone is truly concerned about buying a VR product from a partnership with a company more closely aligned with failing financials and junk products... then Oculus VR hardware is the only sensible option.

inovator
Consultant
There are Zenbane said:



inovator said:


There are members here that are in denial of what is happening and how Oculus is planning it's future. Time will show us all.



Don't start insulting forum members personally. Especially in your case. You're probably the least impactful voice, but you tend to be the first to try to ridicule others. Stick to the topic as best you can so that we can all maintain a healthy dialogue.

People are not necessarily in denial, they just have a different perspective. The concept of "different perspectives" isn't that hard to grasp.


snowdog said:
If you think for even a split second that Oculus won't release the Half Dome prototype as a consumer headset until 2025-2028 then you're insane. Seriously


I was answering the insane accusation as you can see. Calling people insane is different than saying people are in denial. Your very selective of what you say is insulting. We all are in denial about something from time to time. I have told my kids if they are in denial for something. I wouldn't tell them they are insane. Lol

Anonymous
Not applicable

KoBak07 said:
What is disappointing to me with the latest new from the Oculus camp, is that they are actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup, so the quality gap to their mobile VR is not that drastic.

I like the idea for mobile VR, and might pick one up for just viewing content on a higher res panel. But for gaming, what it offers will be to much below the immersion level I want out of VR, that I think it's pointless.


They are not actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup. They went in a direction that makes total sense in terms of what hardware is there and what the people are asking for. I don't consider that a devaluing process. The problem is that they didn't open the channels for more than one line with the comments in the interviews saying that 450$ was the max a customer will want to pay. There is a BIG difference in how that is read and what it means over all. In short - Oculus needs to explain to us what they mean and be honest going forward on their thoughts of PCVR for them.

More or less - if you are new to PCVR - Rift S is a total value bargain. I would totally recommend Rift S to people that want to dip their toes into PCVR. There are a lot of good things with it. On the other hand - if you already dip your toes into PCVR - then you are now iching for more and hearing they are going to move slowly with smaller jumps to keep in a price point is just scary knowing the next big technology change is just around the bin (eye tracking for example).

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

inovator said:
snowdog said:
If you think for even a split second that Oculus won't release the Half Dome prototype as a consumer headset until 2025-2028 then you're insane. Seriously


I was answering the insane accusation as you can see. Calling people insane is different than saying people are in denial. Your very selective of what you say is insulting. We all are in denial about something from time to time. I have told my kids if they are in denial for something. I wouldn't tell them they are insane. Lol



I wasn't picking sides, and I wasn't sure who you were referring to as being in denial to be honest. I saw that Mradr and snowdog were posting a lot and I skim read their stuff. I figured it was one of them you might be referring to. I don't consider either of them to be in denial. I've had a lot of debates with Mradr, and while I think he is "biased" at times (but lets face it, we are all biased), I wouldn't say he is in denial. Samesies for snowdog. Both of these posters have different perspectives, and both perspectives are quite valid because both perspectives stem from valid positions that both Facebook and Oculus have openly taken in the past year.

So again, it is not about being in denial (at least not in this situation). It's about different perspectives.

KoBak07
Protege

Zenbane said:


KoBak07 said:

To me having Lenovo to drive the development of the product is to me a big surprise. Why would a company like Oculus with their depth and experience dump this on a team, which has only brought to market products considered "junk" from a PCVR standpoint?



It didn't seem to bother anyone that Valve turned to HTC, who has only brought to market products that are considered junk. HTC had a long standing relationship with financial loss year-after-year with the one thing they were supposed to do right: smart phones. So why partner with them for something bleeding edge?

People didn't complain about it then, and only served to make excuses as to why both Valve and HTC are somehow VR's "saviors."

Oculus forms one partnership with their PCVR headset and suddenly partnerships are evil.

Lenovo bought out IBM, and has turned more profit than HTC. If someone is truly concerned about buying a VR product from a partnership with a company more closely aligned with failing financials and junk products... then Oculus VR hardware is the only sensible option.


The main difference is that Oculus already has been selling what I would consider a top of the line Gen 1 product, while Valve did not release a product of their own, rather looked for a partner out of the box to start their product lines. So I view this as going from the benchmark of the cutting edge to a product produced by a partner that is a "mediocre" playe r in the VR space.

Also, Lenovo might be a profitable company on the PC side, but I would argue that they have not set the world on fire with design or performance.

KoBak07
Protege

Mradr said:


KoBak07 said:
What is disappointing to me with the latest new from the Oculus camp, is that they are actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup, so the quality gap to their mobile VR is not that drastic.

I like the idea for mobile VR, and might pick one up for just viewing content on a higher res panel. But for gaming, what it offers will be to much below the immersion level I want out of VR, that I think it's pointless.


They are not actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup. They went in a direction that makes total sense in terms of what hardware is there and what the people are asking for. I don't consider that a devaluing process. The problem is that they didn't open the channels for more than one line with the comments in the interviews saying that 450$ was the max a customer will want to pay. There is a BIG difference in how that is read and what it means over all. In short - Oculus needs to explain to us what they mean and be honest going forward on their thoughts of PCVR for them.

More or less - if you are new to PCVR - Rift S is a total value bargain. I would totally recommend Rift S to people that want to dip their toes into PCVR. There are a lot of good things with it. On the other hand - if you already dip your toes into PCVR - then you are now iching for more and hearing they are going to move slowly with smaller jumps to keep in a price point is just scary knowing the next big technology change is just around the bin (eye tracking for example).


I still feel that they are shooting way under to in the PCVR space. Or to use your argument, they are only shooting for what is now the bottom of the VR space, spec wise. I would argue that graphics processing power has increased quite a bit since the initial Gen 1 launch, but they are still holding the line for that level of target specs.
IMO, if companies stop innovation, not pushing the envelope any further, then what's the point. The level of immersion with the current gen screens, the low FOV is all immersion breaking. I still argue, that the barrier to greater adoption is actually the fact that the tech they are pushing in Gen 1 is not good enough for people to spend money on, since the viewing experience / quality much worse than 1080p / 4K regular screens.

Shadowmask72
Honored Visionary
Not sure why this is news when Mr Zuck clearly stated from time ago that the ultimate goal was to get  how many VR headsets into the home? I think there is a quote somewhere in the range of a billion. Thinking clearly without personal preferences in mind, to achieve this goal won't be by catering to the very tiny (as proven by the sales figures) high end PC market.  They are moving in the right direction with Rift S and Quest this is obvious surely. From here on out getting the experience cheaper and without the hassles (Rift S supporting inside out as an evolution of the original sensor setup) a lower entry price-point and bringing the experience to homes without the need for extra gear (a PC) they are fulfilling their goals. Only time will tell whether it will pay off. I think we should look at this as a positive thing that at least one company is attempting to broaden the net so to speak. More VR users the better for everyone. Hopefully they work on improvements over time lowering the form factor and other bits that currently act as a barrier for mass adoption.  

I don't think Oculus/FB are abandoning high end PC VR just shifting focus for the time being to get more people jumping in. I also suspect they are taking the approach of not rushing to market with a product that isn't ready. I am pretty sure when Oculus do announce the CV2 most people will look at specs and dive back in to team Oculus if they are attractive enough and that's regardless of what Valve or anyone else are presenting at the time.

FB/Oculus are in this for the long term and that should be applauded. At least people can rest easy knowing one company with the pockets to back it up has a long term vision/strategy for VR.


System Specs: MSI NVIDIA RTX 4090 , i5 13700K CPU, 32GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 11 64 Bit OS.