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

There are a lot a analogies being thrown into the mix here but I'm not sure any are close enough to the position VR is at right now to be accurate. PCVR should be treated on its own merits and the issues should be considered for what they are.

Rift-S isn't about pushing the VR envelope as has been one complaint, it's about solving the problem we've been facing for 3 years, making PCVR sustainable... making it grow. If it doesn't, why would Oculus continue to invest in software at all? and what's the incentive for other big-name devs?

3 years in, software is sparse by any measure. The made for-VR titles are short and sweet and the best of those is subsidised by the companies making the headsets. VR capable sims are great but Assetto Corsa is 5 years old, Competizione is in early access but I don't think has VR support yet ProjectCARS 1 and 2 being the other notables. Looking at the Steam top sellers, there are 2 VR titles in the top 50 with the first of those sitting at no.24 and that's typical, and I repeat, this is 3 years into consumer VR. 

Codemasters dipped their toe with Dirt Rally and haven't done anything since. Bethesda have done Doom VFR and added imperfect VR to their two bestsellers, Wolfenstein is coming to PC but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be happening if  PlayStation VR didn't exist, and those are the devs that are at least giving us VR, other big-name are completely absent.

Added to this NVidia saw ray tracing as more important than non-RT performance improvements, which has very limited use for VR, whether you're mainstream or enthusiast. And I can't bring myself to blame them. If VR had been a bigger market, their focus may have been different.

While we're arguing over whether PCVR should be high-end or not, we're in danger of being in the same position from now in another 3 years time.

pyroth309
Visionary

CrashFu said:


MowTin said:

The enthusiast is interested in the bleeding edge of technology. The audio enthusiast has $1,000 speakers not the cheap $50 speakers. 

Some rich kid might spend a ton of money on some over-hyped, flashy-looking, celebrity-endorsed Headphones and think he's got the best of the best because it was the most expensive and there were the most ads on TV for it.


You seem to have to some deep-seated hatred of rich people since you continuously bring it up. Here let me help.


Secondly, most PC "enthusiasts" are in fact not rich. They just are willing to sacrifice elsewhere to spend more on their hobby. Being able to spend a few thousand on something that makes you happy isn't even close to qualifying as rich. It's not like we're talking about Lamborghini's here.

3rdly, he said speakers so I assume he meant just that and not headphones.

MowTin
Expert Trustee

CrashFu said:


MowTin said:

The enthusiast is interested in the bleeding edge of technology. The audio enthusiast has $1,000 speakers not the cheap $50 speakers. 


You're confusing "being an enthusiast" with "being a pretentious rich kid who doesn't understand the difference between Cost and Value".  To use your audio equipment metaphor:

Some rich kid might spend a ton of money on some over-hyped, flashy-looking, celebrity-endorsed Headphones and think he's got the best of the best because it was the most expensive and there were the most ads on TV for it.

A true enthusiast would spend half as much (or less!) on a good pair of Audio-Technicas, knowing they come from a company that has been wholly dedicated to making audio equipment from the start.  Even if it's not the most expensive set Audio-Technica has, the enthusiast knows that they will be the best for that price. And because the enthusiast didn't waste all that extra money paying for the over-hyped stuff, they can take what they saved and go buy tons of  actual media to enjoy with it.



Although, I think a more fitting metaphor at this point would be that Oculus is Nintendo and Valve is Walmart.   If Walmart announced an official Walmart-branded, Walmart-designed game console tomorrow, and gave no details about it other than a single photo and the promise that it has "a higher resolution than the Nintendo Switch!" or something like that,  would you swear off Nintendo games for life and become a loyal devotee of the Walmart console empire?   "That's apples to oranges, Walmart doesn't make games or game consoles!"  Exactly.  They have no prior history of making game consoles, and they sell other peoples' games (many of them out of bins with big, single-digit price signs overhead)  but are otherwise not part of the game industry.  So why would you trust them with a game console, especially given a suspicious lack of details, unless you were the most die-hard Walmart fan alive?


How you choose to define "enthusiast" is irrelevant. There is an enthusiast or premium market for almost any product. Cologne, wine, cars, homes, etc, etc. That's just a reality. Oculus stated they're not interested in the premium market. That's also a fact.

Will Valve's new headset be worth purchasing? We don't know yet. Right now, they're the best hope at seeing a premium headset. 

You're right, that Valve has a questionable history regarding manufacturing hardware. Your concern is valid. Let's hope they get this right. If they deliver a quality 130 FOV high res experience with knuckled controls then they will have pushed the envelope and enthusiasts will be happy. 

I don't think I've said anything controversial. It's just a matter of fact. 


i7 9700k 3090 rtx   CV1, Rift-S, Index, G2

inovator
Consultant
Kobako7 said:
I think just that many of us original Rift users are kind of disappointed with FB seemingly switching from servicing high and low end, to low and low-mid market segments from a hardware perspective. HW is not everything, but I can't think of any other company from other industries that decided to seemingly turn away a market lead on purpose.

The rift s will bring in many more users than they would otherwise in my opinion. I predict their market lead will not be lost but will be increased. What you said may be true of the high end enthusiasts but the mainstream users is a better bet for oculus to please.

Anonymous
Not applicable

CrashFu said:


MowTin said:

The enthusiast is interested in the bleeding edge of technology. The audio enthusiast has $1,000 speakers not the cheap $50 speakers. 


You're confusing "being an enthusiast" with "being a pretentious rich kid who doesn't understand the difference between Cost and Value".  To use your audio equipment metaphor:

Some rich kid might spend a ton of money on some over-hyped, flashy-looking, celebrity-endorsed Headphones and think he's got the best of the best because it was the most expensive and there were the most ads on TV for it.


Dude, you need to stop calling other forum members "Rich kids" its against the rules... Honestly - this will be your first warning. I let it side a few times now - but it's getting a bit silly to keep calling other forum members this. Its one thing to call me stuff - but its another to call forum members something else. Please try to keep it civil as this can result in wars breaking out pretty quickly.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

inovator said:


RedRizla said:

Not wanting to repeat myself, but why didn't they just make Rift -S like Rift Quest? That way you get audio headphones, ipd adjustment, higher resolutions screens and all for the same price as the Oculus Quest. I remember the guy from Oculus saying it was the halo design of the Rift -S that made it the same price as the Oculus Quest, but I think people were happy with the design of Oculus Quest and CV1.

I don't think they would have needed to even partner with Lenovo if they had done that would they?


 Your mistaking about the headphones. Audio will work the same on both with no headphones built in. 



The audio won't work the same at all. The hands on reviews have already said the audio in the Rift -S isn't as good as the CV1 headphones. That's why Oculus is now going to add some headphones to Rift -S as clip on headphones. But that will come at a price no doubt making it cost more then Oculus Quest.

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:


inovator said:


RedRizla said:

Not wanting to repeat myself, but why didn't they just make Rift -S like Rift Quest? That way you get audio headphones, ipd adjustment, higher resolutions screens and all for the same price as the Oculus Quest. I remember the guy from Oculus saying it was the halo design of the Rift -S that made it the same price as the Oculus Quest, but I think people were happy with the design of Oculus Quest and CV1.

I don't think they would have needed to even partner with Lenovo if they had done that would they?


 Your mistaking about the headphones. Audio will work the same on both with no headphones built in. 



The audio won't work the same at all. The hands on reviews have already said the audio in the Rift -S isn't as good as the CV1 headphones. That's why Oculus is now going to add some headphones to Rift -S as clip on headphones. But that will come at a price no doubt making it cost more then Oculus Quest.


My take away was that at first they was going to sell them on the side - but after the backlash - they are going to include them instead. I might be wrong - but that is my take away from all the news so far.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Mradr said:


CrashFu said:


MowTin said:

The enthusiast is interested in the bleeding edge of technology. The audio enthusiast has $1,000 speakers not the cheap $50 speakers. 


You're confusing "being an enthusiast" with "being a pretentious rich kid who doesn't understand the difference between Cost and Value".  To use your audio equipment metaphor:

Some rich kid might spend a ton of money on some over-hyped, flashy-looking, celebrity-endorsed Headphones and think he's got the best of the best because it was the most expensive and there were the most ads on TV for it.


Dude, you need to stop calling other forum members "Rich kids" its against the rules... Honestly - this will be your first warning. I let it side a few times now - but it's getting a bit silly to keep calling other forum members this. Its one thing to call me stuff - but its another to call forum members something else. Please try to keep it civil as this can result in wars breaking out pretty quickly.



Firstly, who are you to give out warnings? Are you a Mod in disguise? lol

And he wasn't calling anyone 'rich kids' apart from actual rich kids in the context he was using. The point he was making was pretty obvious and not meant to insult anyone here. Good grief.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

snowdog said:


RedRizla said:

Not wanting to repeat myself, but why didn't they just make Rift -S like Rift Quest? That way you get audio headphones, ipd adjustment, higher resolutions screens and all for the same price as the Oculus Quest. I remember the guy from Oculus saying it was the halo design of the Rift -S that made it the same price as the Oculus Quest, but I think people were happy with the design of Oculus Quest and CV1.

I don't think they would have needed to even partner with Lenovo if they had done that would they?



Because of the order they were designed in. The design timeline goes like this:

Oculus Quest -> Oculus Go -> Oculus Rift S 

If they had designed the Go first then the Quest would have had a single LCD display and a software IPD adjustment. And all 3 headsets have sound tubes as far as I remember, although I will stand to be corrected if the Quest has built in headphones! You'd also probably see the Quest having a halo strap and being made by Lenovo too tbh.



Well wouldn't it have made sense to stick with the ipd adjustment like on the CV1 design and Oculus Quest, if you want to attract billions of people? Also the audio in the halo design is worse then CV1, if Oculus GO is anything to go by.

So in the end you get Oculus Quest that has better audio and higher resolution screens at a lower price the Rift -S and all because the Rift -S uses a halo design? Plus you lose the ipd adjustment to cater for those people who are out of range? I don't get the thinking behind that tbh.

MowTin
Expert Trustee

Mradr said:


Dude, you need to stop calling other forum members "Rich kids" its against the rules... 


I didn't take any offense. I'm neither rich or a kid. Most enthusiasts aren't rich, they're just passionate. Lots of ordinary people spend thousands on their cars. A few rims will cost you over $2k. 

I remember back in the day a classmate of mine worked the summer and saved $5k to buy a high-end gaming PC.  It was a 486 with a blazing fast 66Mhz processor. lol

I really envied him. 
i7 9700k 3090 rtx   CV1, Rift-S, Index, G2