High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath - Page 5 — 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

1235714

Comments

  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,278 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    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.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    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. 


    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.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,278 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    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.
    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: 1,880
    Project 2501
    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
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,367 Valuable Player
    edited April 14
    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).
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,278 Valuable Player
    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.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    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.
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    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.

  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,663 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • NetheriNetheri Posts: 214
    Nexus 6
    edited April 15
    "Connecting People"..well that has some bad ring to it (if you know which companys slogan it was before huge drop as the company didin't listen what the public and customer wanted). Also, just leaving this formula here: Rift + 2k resolution 2 screen system with physical ipd + 150 degree fov + better fresnells =profit with customers happy. But no, letsago with one screen with software ipd and crappy resolution with gray blacks.  :disappointed: 

    Edit: yeah i know it would cost more, but Oculus already has the throw-in hardware which is known as Oculus Quest.
    i5-8600K@5GHz, Gigabyte 2080 Gaming OC, Corsair 32gb 3000MHz@3100MHz DDR4, ROG Strix Z370 H Gaming, 2 x Inateck 4 port USB 3.0 cards.
    Non-mandatory Home 2.0 and/or Dash in memoriam
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,568 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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?

    Well to be fair, the Lenovo Explorer was actually praised by most people who used it. The LCD panel was sharper than the Rift or Vive with less SDE and easier to read text. I can tell you I was actually jealous of the SDE and the hinge that they added that let you flip it up to look at things. Lenovo has been around a long time and know what they're doing.
    As a complete package it was behind Rift or Vive but that wasn't really Lenovo's fault or role. That was more of a fault of the Windows Mixed Reality platform which was on Microsoft. It came up a bit short but at the same time proved that Inside Out is viable.
    The partnership with Oculus made a lot of sense to me for both companies. Some of the design choices that were made for cost savings I don't like or agree with but I never really had a problem with Lenovo building it. 

    That all being said, what did concern me about Lenovo was a lot of people had problems getting support or warranty coverage. I'm curious if Lenovo or Oculus is going to handle/foot the bill with this one.
  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 2,064 Valuable Player
    kojack said:
    I joined here the day the forum opened back in March 2013
    Damn, you beat me by 1 hour 11 min. :)


    Slacker.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,367 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    KoBak07 said:
    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.

    I would argue that GPU performance has increase - but it hasn't increase that much. For a few reasons such as: The shrink size coming down the pipe line, AMD focus on their CPU line vs their GPU line, NV pricing on the 20s cards, Bitcoin backlash, memory prices, etc

    I feel like PC hardware took a beating the last few years really and we still have another year to go before it will recover from all that mess. With that said - there is still the future we know that should still happen such as AMD releasing better GPU after the console lunches, NV RTX getting cheaper, Intel joining the race, hardware advancements such as eye tracking, and some software advancements such as VRS coming down the pipe line for all 3 companies.

    This is why I feel like the Rift S still makes 100% sense in what they did. That's why the comment "actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup" doesn't make sense when on the graphic side of things is till recovering from before.

    With that said - I  agree that it should not stop innovation. If we're just around the bin for something like eye tracking - it REALLY shouldn't stop Oculus to release a product that takes use of that and sell it above the 450 mark and ignore the na sayers. At the end of the day - specs do make or break a product still and the only way forward for PCVR is if we can get these specs high enough to make them a better value to the end customer than what flat screen can give. With in reason of course. Once we pass that bump - I be happy to focus once again on price, but until that happens - PCVR just hasn't hit that "good enough" mark just yet considering we are still on gen 1. Granted, that isn't everything for sure - software is still king to draw in people - but having the freedom to do a little extra for detail reasons goes a long way as well. At the heart of hardware innovation is to give us the resources for that pretty life like game and take it that one more step forward than we had before.

    PCVR at the end of the day will never be mainstream - as I said in other post - but it can be the flag ship for VR to show off what VR can be like in the future. While Quest and GO devices will carry VR forward for the masses with less hassle, reasonable price points, and more accessibility.

  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,278 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    KoBak07 said:
    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" player 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.

    "Not setting the world on fire" is not the same thing as "creating junk," which is what you tried to argue earlier. So you are issue dodging here and pivoting the original point.

    Based on the first version of your argument, it was false to state that Lenovo is known for making junk. And there is nothing inherently wrong with any partnership, as seen by HTC and Valve. Not to mention that Oculus partnered with Xiaomi for GO, which turned out to be a surprising success.

    As for your new argument, there is still wrong information in there. Rift, GO, and Quest are Facebook products. They officially own this IP and Facebook owns Oculus. On the timeline of history, the Rift CV1 was made specifically by Oculus as it existed when Facebook and Oculus became partners as part of a Buyout. So technically, these Facebook products have always been built by another company. First it was the original Oculus building the Rift CV1, and now Facebook has someone else building GO and Rift-S. There is nothing bad or uncommon happening here.

    What you seem to be doing is trying re-frame the situation to make it appear inherently bad. And it's not.
    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: 14,278 Valuable Player
    KoBak07 said:
    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.


    You are making the same mistake others make so often by portraying the "PCVR space" as something that is limited to hardware. Because Facebook isn't competing direct with the Vive Pro and Pimax 5K/8K with the Rift-S on a purely hardware level, people want to pretend that Oculus has left PCVR or trying to lower their commitment to it.

    Once Stormland and Defector come out, I'm confident that people will be reminded that the "PCVR space" requires high-end software to push hardware, not the other way around.

    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: 1,880
    Project 2501
    At the end of the day software is king. Make software awesome enough then more will come.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,278 Valuable Player
    inovator said:
    At the end of the day software is king. Make software awesome enough then more will come.

    Agreed. This is the one constant truth that has proven its own validity repeatedly from the beginning of this era of mainstream VR.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    Mradr said:
    I would argue that GPU performance has increase - but it hasn't increase that much. For a few reasons such as: The shrink size coming down the pipe line, AMD focus on their CPU line vs their GPU line, NV pricing on the 20s cards, Bitcoin backlash, memory prices, etc

    I feel like PC hardware took a beating the last few years really and we still have another year to go before it will recover from all that mess. With that said - there is still the future we know that should still happen such as AMD releasing better GPU after the console lunches, NV RTX getting cheaper, Intel joining the race, hardware advancements such as eye tracking, and some software advancements such as VRS coming down the pipe line for all 3 companies.

    This is why I feel like the Rift S still makes 100% sense in what they did. That's why the comment "actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup" doesn't make sense when on the graphic side of things is till recovering from before.

    With that said - I  agree that it should not stop innovation. If we're just around the bin for something like eye tracking - it REALLY shouldn't stop Oculus to release a product that takes use of that and sell it above the 450 mark and ignore the na sayers. At the end of the day - specs do make or break a product still and the only way forward for PCVR is if we can get these specs high enough to make them a better value to the end customer than what flat screen can give. With in reason of course. Once we pass that bump - I be happy to focus once again on price, but until that happens - PCVR just hasn't hit that "good enough" mark just yet considering we are still on gen 1. Granted, that isn't everything for sure - software is still king to draw in people - but having the freedom to do a little extra for detail reasons goes a long way as well. At the heart of hardware innovation is to give us the resources for that pretty life like game and take it that one more step forward than we had before.

    PCVR at the end of the day will never be mainstream - as I said in other post - but it can be the flag ship for VR to show off what VR can be like in the future. While Quest and GO devices will carry VR forward for the masses with less hassle, reasonable price points, and more accessibility.

    I would say the two gen changes, going from a 9x to 20x did bring about a doubling of raw graphics performance, which possibly could have been even more if NV did not end up in the crypto craze and bust and AMD had more resources to spend on graphics while getting Zen out. As you said, Intel is about to also make it a three way race just around the corner, so we should expect some good to come out from that. That is why is kind of hard to accept that they are anchoring their "flagship" to old hardware gen.

    I would disagree with the argument that PCVR will never be mainstream. People said the same about how with consoles around PC gaming will become extinct, or a shrink to a niche. But for some reason, that does not seem to be happening. For example there are still companies dedicated to selling graphics cards, on which they seem to be making some pretty good money on (unless of course you misjudge demand by a whole and end up with a large pile of obsolete inventory to burn through).
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,278 Valuable Player
    KoBak07 said:
    I would disagree with the argument that PCVR will never be mainstream.

    I do agree with this. PCVR goes beyond gaming and Entertainment. PC's are mainstream at the workplace, and VR has already begun extending workplace capabilities. PCVR will most certainly be the single most mainstream VR platform globally.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,367 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    Zenbane said:
    KoBak07 said:
    I would disagree with the argument that PCVR will never be mainstream.

    I do agree with this. PCVR goes beyond gaming and Entertainment. PC's are mainstream at the workplace, and VR has already begun extending workplace capabilities. PCVR will most certainly be the single most mainstream VR platform globally.
    I will agree VR as a whole is beyond gaming and entertainment for sure and PCVR could be use out side of those limits as well, but from a hardware supported stand point - it would be consider niche still for at this time. Until we get hardware and software advancements to shrink the requirements to run such a device the same or better than 1080p resolution and easy in and out access - PCVR I feel wont grow past 10% vs the 1% is now meaning it wont be mainstream from that stand point. For anything outside of customer grade - you still be looking at 1000s of dollars because VR devices would need to meet standers and be higher spec than you would find in the customer grade meaning it'll be niche there to what a normal customer is willing to spend. By customers - I mean your every day Joe. Joe+  will buy it if it is with in reason, but JoeB on the other hand should have a enough money for that device - but JoeB is consider very niche to what Joe+ even wants/can afford.

    I guess we need to define what mainstream means to someone.. considering mainstream for me means "the most" or "the highest percent of". Witch is where GO, Quest and Consoles seems to have the highest numbers when you compare it to CV1 and PC sells. For example, as far as gaming and entertainment, consoles are mainstream over PC are and whatever the console wants to have happen - it'll effect PC in some way while whatever the PC does - it might not effect consoles in the same way. In terms of the market - more people don't have a PC that can run VR right now than the 20% that could and the 1% that does. So when we say mainstream - are we talking mainstream VR - with in PC - or with in the 20%? I hope I am not stepping on any toes - I am just confuse on what you mean by mainstream to what we see right now for supported hardware.
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    Zenbane said:
    KoBak07 said:
    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" player 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.

    "Not setting the world on fire" is not the same thing as "creating junk," which is what you tried to argue earlier. So you are issue dodging here and pivoting the original point.

    Based on the first version of your argument, it was false to state that Lenovo is known for making junk. And there is nothing inherently wrong with any partnership, as seen by HTC and Valve. Not to mention that Oculus partnered with Xiaomi for GO, which turned out to be a surprising success.

    As for your new argument, there is still wrong information in there. Rift, GO, and Quest are Facebook products. They officially own this IP and Facebook owns Oculus. On the timeline of history, the Rift CV1 was made specifically by Oculus as it existed when Facebook and Oculus became partners as part of a Buyout. So technically, these Facebook products have always been built by another company. First it was the original Oculus building the Rift CV1, and now Facebook has someone else building GO and Rift-S. There is nothing bad or uncommon happening here.

    What you seem to be doing is trying re-frame the situation to make it appear inherently bad. And it's not.
    I don't see how I would be dodging anything here. Their PC hardware lineup is definitely "Not setting the world on fire" when it comes to design, and material quality.

    The Lenovo Explorer experience compared to the Rift is like getting out of nice Audi A6 and sit in a Nissan Sentra. From a nice interior, with decent road performance, to hard plastics with numb steering.

    Calling the Oculus acquisition a partnership, just like the Xiaomi or the Lenovo one is weird. There is nothing wrong with Partnerships in business, it happens all the time, in all industries, not just VR. What I am concerned with is taking on a weak partner. Sorry, but Lenovo did not bring anything to market to date in this space that is pushing for a better VR immersion. The S has a giant Lenovo logo on the side, looks just like the Explorer, with the Oculus tracking cameras strapped on. While the Quest and Go looks like an Oculus product.

    I am sad that that all the recent developments from FB/O regarding PCVR has been inherently bad:
    - Iribe leaving
    - lots of articles about supposed cancellation of CV2
    - lots of noise about how mobile VR will revolutionize immersion
    - finally the official Rift S release

    All the changes they made to the Rift, when viewed with knowing the Quest is coming has been bad for PCVR:
    - make sure the resolution is not better in PCVR than on Quest: CHECK
    - make sure the tracking performance is not better by getting rid of 360 tracking: CHECK
    - make sure the audio is not better: CHECK

    They should have just added the tether option to the Quest and call it a day until they are (if ever) ready to release a CV2. IMO not many would have complained... Not that it's not our best pastime though
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    Zenbane said:
    KoBak07 said:
    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.


    You are making the same mistake others make so often by portraying the "PCVR space" as something that is limited to hardware. Because Facebook isn't competing direct with the Vive Pro and Pimax 5K/8K with the Rift-S on a purely hardware level, people want to pretend that Oculus has left PCVR or trying to lower their commitment to it.

    Once Stormland and Defector come out, I'm confident that people will be reminded that the "PCVR space" requires high-end software to push hardware, not the other way around.

    I completely agree that we need software to push the pace of hardware development. However I would argue that there is already software that could benefit from better hardware, and the Rift-S is definitely not pushing the envelope there.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,910 Valuable Player
    pyroth309 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?

    Well to be fair, the Lenovo Explorer was actually praised by most people who used it. The LCD panel was sharper than the Rift or Vive with less SDE and easier to read text. I can tell you I was actually jealous of the SDE and the hinge that they added that let you flip it up to look at things. Lenovo has been around a long time and know what they're doing.
    As a complete package it was behind Rift or Vive but that wasn't really Lenovo's fault or role. That was more of a fault of the Windows Mixed Reality platform which was on Microsoft. It came up a bit short but at the same time proved that Inside Out is viable.
    The partnership with Oculus made a lot of sense to me for both companies. Some of the design choices that were made for cost savings I don't like or agree with but I never really had a problem with Lenovo building it. 

    That all being said, what did concern me about Lenovo was a lot of people had problems getting support or warranty coverage. I'm curious if Lenovo or Oculus is going to handle/foot the bill with this one.

    Oculus will handle support and warranty coverage because it's an Oculus headset. Same deal with the Go.
    "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: 2,064 Valuable Player

    I am really looking forward to revisiting the software I already purchased in a wider FOV and higher resolution. Lone Echo witth 135 degrees FOV, oh my.
  • jayhawkjayhawk Posts: 800
    3Jane
    Mradr said:

    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?
    Good point
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,409 Valuable Player
    I keep saying it but I do get why Oculus want to make a cheaper headset. However, I don't think you can just ignore things like good sounding audio headphones and IPD adjustment if you want to attract billions of people. I was happy to use my own gaming headphones, but after seeing some hands on reviews, it's obvious that some headphones don't even fit over the halo design.

    Now Oculus say they are going to add headphones at this late stage, but no doubt that will increase the price of their headset. When you consider the Oculus Quest has already got good head phones, higher resolution screens and an Ipd adjustment, it makes you wonder why the Rift -S will end up been more expensive with what appears to be cheaper tech.

    Listening to what Nate Mitchell said in that interview. He seems to suggest that it is the design of the Oculus Rift -S that makes it the same price as the Oculus Quest, but was a change of design to the halo really necessary when it was going to increase the price of the Rift -S? I think lots of people would have preferred the Oculus Quest design and had the good audio headphones and higher resolutions screens like the Oculus Quest has got. 

    Oculus didn't really need Lenovo to develop Rift -S imho. They could have just gone with the Oculus Quest design and had the same audio headphones and screens. Why would they have needed to partner with Lenovo if they had done that?
Sign In or Register to comment.