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

13468914

Comments

  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,095 Valuable Player
    I really like the audio in the go. But I can see the leakage of sound creates a need for an audio headphone solution. If you have the opportunity to use it where others will not be annoyed I think many people will enjoy it. Quest reviews on a busy noisy area ofor the gdc  should not be taken to seriously.
  • MowTinMowTin Posts: 1,782 Valuable Player
    CrashFu said:
    Because nothing says "Enthusiast" like getting your hardware from a company that is less than 1% invested in your hobby, and that has a proven track-record of abandoning their products immediately after release.

    Yep, that totally screams "Enthusiast" and not "Making rash, knee-jerk decisions in response to blind speculation"  :wink:

    Facebook bought Oculus. Facebook is not a hardware company or a gaming company. Now they've chosen to focus on "connecting people" instead of pushing the envelope of VR technology. 

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

    There will always be companies willing to cater to the enthusiast market. Unfortunately, that's not Oculus anymore. I'm not speculating. I'm taking them at their word. They want to "connect people." 
    i7 6700k 2080ti   Rift-S, Index
  • MowTinMowTin Posts: 1,782 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    KoBak07 said:
    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. 

    I agree. It's like Audi abandoning their high end market for the more profitable mid to low end. 

    Audi would never do that because they understand that their high-end market feeds their mid-range. It gives their brand value and prestige. And the technologies they develop for their high-end cars eventually become affordable and incorporated in their mid-range.

    Audi is also involved in racing. It's not profitable for them but the technology and the prestige make it worth it.

    A bean counter would suggest Audi just sell their mid-range cars because it's more profitable but that would be totally wrong.  And I think some bean counter at Facebook decided that the mid-range VR is where the market is at. They're not considering how Oculus will be seen as a second rate VR brand. Oculus is going to be the Honda of VR. A nice bland practical device for those who can't afford something better.  
    i7 6700k 2080ti   Rift-S, Index
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,709 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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?
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,095 Valuable Player
    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. 
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,112 Valuable Player
    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.
    "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
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,095 Valuable Player
    Zenbane said:
    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.
    We are a couple of fucken genius! especially me because this link said content is king and quoted the movie field of dreams: make it and they will come a few hours later after our chat.

     https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/oculus-sean-liu-talks-content-king-vr-3696656/amp&ved=2ahUKEwiLuaPHz9LhAhXikOAKHaETDvIQ0PADMAJ6BAgIEAw&usg=AOvVaw3nNa6hmZt3ctZm8VFFtZyT&ampcf=1
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    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?
    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    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?
    This sounds to me more like bitterness about other people spending a grand on a pair of speakers. Actually a grand for a pair of speakers is definitely not in the ultra-high-end pricing.

    Why do you think there are companies trembling over themselves to bring out the next supercar, that can do 0-60 in the 2 second range, when the max street speed limit is barely over that on pretty much most of the miles of us roads for example? A marketplace is a pretty large pie, so companies take decisions on what slice of that pie they will try to serve as their target market.

    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.

  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,223 Volunteer Moderator
    edited April 15
    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.
    Intel 5820K [email protected], 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 v1903 (18363.476)
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,568 Valuable Player
    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.
  • MowTinMowTin Posts: 1,782 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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 6700k 2080ti   Rift-S, Index
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,095 Valuable Player
    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.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,709 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    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.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,112 Valuable Player
    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.
    "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
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,709 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
  • MowTinMowTin Posts: 1,782 Valuable Player
    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 6700k 2080ti   Rift-S, Index
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    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.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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).
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,709 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,112 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
    "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
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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&tl=en&u=https://www.computerbase.de/2019-04/oculus-kein-high-end-vr-headset/&xid=17259,15700021,15700043,15700186,15700191,15700253,15700256,15700259
    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.
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,223 Volunteer Moderator
    edited April 15
    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.
    Intel 5820K [email protected], 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 v1903 (18363.476)
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,112 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
    "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
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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 ~
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    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.
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,223 Volunteer Moderator
    It's going to be really interesting to see where Quest fits into all of this.
    How many people will see it as an affordable alternative to PCVR? How many will see it as an addition to their PCVR?

    We may also be ignoring the elephant in the room.... what if there are only a certain percentage of gamers and techies who are interested in VR at all right now and we're higher to reaching that ceiling than we think?

    I remember first getting an internet connection... it seemed to be many years before it became a thing that a lot of other people wanted. VR take-up could just be facing a similar early inertia regardless of price, software and headset capabilities.
    Intel 5820K [email protected], 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 v1903 (18363.476)
Sign In or Register to comment.