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

KoBak07
Protege

inovator said:

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.


I was not speaking of market lead from a qty perspective, much rather than tech advantage. They might end up with a bunch of new users, but I will be curious to see how engaged this segment will be about actually keep buying content. IF we end up with low quality in graphics and immersion I would due to the low minimum hardware requirements, I would argue that these new users will pretty quick to run away.

Anonymous
Not applicable

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, Copetizione 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. 


Agree - software is the number one issues with VR right now, but also the red hiring as well. As we know - we need hardware/customers first before more software will come to the table - but we need software to bring in more users. It's what I been saying all this time xD

The question is how do we sell more hardware to bring in more customers that will allow more more pool of money to draw in bigger software titles? When we say this - we usually talk about PCVR - but I think that is the wrong way to look at it - your mainstream users just don't have a powerful enough computer in the first place to run VR. They are that 80% I keep saying exist. Your enthusiast crowd are the other 20%. Right now, even with the low cost of CV1 - PCVR is still less than 1% of that 20% meaning it's NOT doing that great as of yet. I don't think cost of the headset is what stopping people coming over to the dark side. It has to be something else.

With Quest - and why there is soo much work being done with it I assume, is that is their penny for a pound way out of the current issues found with PCVR in that - the HMD price isnt the limiting factor - but the PC it self is. It just cost too much to get into PCVR for the Joe on the streets. They rather spend their money else where but wouldn't mind playing in VR if they could just jump into it and play without having to trouble shoot anything other than turn it off and on much like we see with consoles. There is just too much complexity when it comes to using a computer vs something design just for playing games or running your type of software (could be production software/office software/etc).

Anonymous
Not applicable

snowdog said:


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.


Yes, I am:)  He call it out a few times honestly - and many forum members have taken offense to it - so either way - still against the rules of the forum. Just find another way to say it. Thanks.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary
I wish I was rich or even just a kid. Rich because I'd buy all the VR headsets and a kid because I'd live long enough to see VR at it's very best. It would also be cheap as chips by the time I got older.

Anonymous
Not applicable

KoBak07 said:


inovator said:

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.


I was not speaking of market lead from a qty perspective, much rather than tech advantage. They might end up with a bunch of new users, but I will be curious to see how engaged this segment will be about actually keep buying content. IF we end up with low quality in graphics and immersion I would due to the low minimum hardware requirements, I would argue that these new users will pretty quick to run away.



This is why Oculus decided to cut the refresh rate from 90Hz to 80Hz. You're not getting lower quality in graphics, you're getting graphics quality just a notch below the Vive Pro with less SDE and less god rays for a fraction of the price and not needing an expensive GPU upgrade to run the thing.

And when the CV2 does get released we'll be looking at a large leap in quality (4K displays, 140 degrees FOV, eye tracking and foveated rendering) for a cheaper price than any competing headset with similar specs. And because Oculus will have delayed the release of it until 2022 we know that it's going to be of better quality than competitors' headsets, the Touch controllers are the prime example of this happening before.

Anonymous
Not applicable

snowdog said:


This is why Oculus decided to cut the refresh rate from 90Hz to 80Hz. You're not getting lower quality in graphics, you're getting graphics quality just a notch below the Vive Pro with less SDE and less god rays for a fraction of the price and not needing an expensive GPU upgrade to run the thing.

And when the CV2 does get released we'll be looking at a large leap in quality (4K displays, 140 degrees FOV, eye tracking and foveated rendering) for a cheaper price than any competing headset with similar specs. And because Oculus will have delayed the release of it until 2022 we know that it's going to be of better quality than competitors' headsets, the Touch controllers are the prime example of this happening before.


Agree about the Rift S - but what does that say about the Rift 2 though?

I mean they said it wont be above the 450$ mark meaning the CV2 we want - will be still out of price range for 2022 base off the current cost of the Rift S - Rift S base will be costing at least 200-300$ for the cameras, shell, head strap, etc. We wont be moving back to 4k display(s - more than 2) because that would be way too costly. We would have to see a 8k single display instead if their goal is to keep cost low. By 2022 - I am not sure a 8k panel will be cheap enough even by then to get into that 450$ range. This is even before we talk about the cost of eye tracking will add also back into the device. Over all - I dont think we will see a true CV2 by 2022 at that range - but something short of that to keep 1) price low, and 2) the users that can support it still with in range. That means we will see something more like a Vive Pro specs is today or 2k by 2k with eye tracking instead over a single 4k panel.

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=3&hl=de&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&...
High-end does not fit the corporate philosophy....

Jason expects that a Rift-style headset with better technical specifications, priced at over € 449, would find virtually no buyers for the Oculus Rift S. Many people could not connect such a product and is therefore not pursued.


Mradr said:


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, Copetizione 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. 


Agree - software is the number one issues with VR right now, but also the red hiring as well. As we know - we need hardware/customers first before more software will come to the table - but we need software to bring in more users. It's what I been saying all this time xD

The question is how do we sell more hardware to bring in more customers that will allow more more pool of money to draw in bigger software titles? When we say this - we usually talk about PCVR - but I think that is the wrong way to look at it - your mainstream users just don't have a powerful enough computer in the first place to run VR. They are that 80% I keep saying exist. Your enthusiast crowd are the other 20%. Right now, even with the low cost of CV1 - PCVR is still less than 1% of that 20% meaning it's NOT doing that great as of yet. I don't think cost of the headset is what stopping people coming over to the dark side. It has to be something else.

With Quest - and why there is soo much work being done with it I assume, is that is their penny for a pound way out of the current issues found with PCVR in that - the HMD price isnt the limiting factor - but the PC it self is. It just cost too much to get into PCVR for the Joe on the streets. They rather spend their money else where but wouldn't mind playing in VR if they could just jump into it and play without having to trouble shoot anything other than turn it off and on much like we see with consoles. There is just too much complexity when it comes to using a computer vs something design just for playing games or running your type of software (could be production software/office software/etc).

Well, let's say you're right with the 20% being enthusiasts and having the PC powerful enough for VR and 5% of those have gotten into VR, resulting in the 1% of overall PC users owning VR headsets.

I think the only thing preventing more enthusiasts from getting into VR is software not hardware. The Vive Pro is expensive but I think more enthusiasts would have gone for it if there had been the titles to make the purchase worthwhile.

Dropping PC requirements somewhat whilst at the same time improving the visuals somewhat and lessening the hassle of sensors and cabling, is a reasonable tactic imo for PCVR right now. I'm not going to claim it'll definitely work but it seems to me to be the right thing to try.

Edit: I know this doesn't address the argument of why not produce an enthusiast headset also, but rightly or wrongly, I just see that as a non-contributor.

Anonymous
Not applicable
It'll be $600, not $450, no matter what was said during that interview. You also have to remember that this interview was translated by Google Translate too.

They need high end PC VR. The Rift S is a high end PC VR headset, not a mid range one. Ticks are always cheaper than Tocks because Tocks always have new tech, and that tech is always found in the following Tick when that new tech has matured and is cheaper  to produce.

As I've said before they're not going to sit on their eye tracking and foveated rendering tech until 2028 so that they can put it into standalone headsets for the first time. The Tock is going to be a high end PC VR headset and it'll be released in 3 years time.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Well, let's say you're right with the 20% being enthusiasts and having the PC powerful enough for VR and 5% of those have gotten into VR, resulting in the 1% of overall PC users owning VR headsets.

I think the only thing preventing more enthusiasts from getting into VR is software not hardware. The Vive Pro is expensive but I think more enthusiasts would have gone for it if there had been the titles to make the purchase worthwhile.

Dropping PC requirements somewhat whilst at the same time improving the visuals somewhat and lessening the hassle of sensors and cabling, is a reasonable tactic imo for PCVR right now. I'm not going to claim it'll definitely work but it seems to me to be the right thing to try.

Edit: I know this doesn't address the argument of why not produce an enthusiast headset also, but rightly or wrongly, I just see that as a non-contributor.


No, that is fine. I am getting at the fact that even if we jump up to 5% for PCVR - that still is a FAR cry of that 80% that still exist. If Quest even get 15% or 20% of that 80% - that still would draw and generate more sells than 5% of us enthusiasts would generate though and over all means that PCVR would still be a niche market compare to the rest of possible people to sell software to for VR. The big difference will come in to how much software will want to set their prices to. PCVR could stand 30-60$ games for fewer sells - Quest on the other hand will have to sell their software around the 15-45 range instead base off the markets they will be targeting to the money left over per week someone will have.

Aka, PCVR will never lose as a market - even if we are smaller - we still provide the biggest jumps for money per unit while mainstream will just flat out have more numbers and therefore will make up their lower software cost by selling more units. Units being software/apps/games/etc ~

Anonymous
Not applicable

snowdog said:

It'll be $600, not $450, no matter what was said during that interview. You also have to remember that this interview was translated by Google Translate too.

They need high end PC VR. The Rift S is a high end PC VR headset, not a mid range one. Ticks are always cheaper than Tocks because Tocks always have new tech, and that tech is always found in the following Tick when that new tech has matured and is cheaper  to produce.

As I've said before they're not going to sit on their eye tracking and foveated rendering tech until 2028 so that they can put it into standalone headsets for the first time. The Tock is going to be a high end PC VR headset and it'll be released in 3 years time.


They don't need high end PCVR though - they just need to make enough money to pay their workers and their investors. Any thing left over goes to expanding their software line up to draw in more users. Nothing in that plan will help us get a better HMD right now. That's the sad truth in what he was saying - and the reason a lot of us are upset. They didn't devalue or drop PCVR - they will just have more options now outside of PCVR as whole instead. This means smaller advancements in our jumps to keep price low.

At this point - waiting 3 years to find out is just not a option as we talk about last page - anything could happen between then and there and it looks like other VR companies might try and take that crown away if they can.