High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath - Page 7 — 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

145791014

Comments

  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,407 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?
    Probably because Lenova was behind the design...
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case|
  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 372
    Trinity
    edited April 15
    I think we need to remember that Lenovo is the only manufacturer outside of SONY to have a license to use the PSVR Halo headstrap for their VR headsets.

    I am absolutely certain that is the main reason why Oculus teamed up with Lenovo (to gain access to the PSVR Halo; so no this isn't the WMR halo [verified by those who used the Rift S and said it felt similar to PSVR]), and Lenovo would probably need to have their branding on the headset to stay compliant with the licensing agreement. That's probably why Oculus states publically that Lenovo was vital to the design process, as it's probably another licensing lingo thing.

    With respect to just the HMD part of Rift-S, I'm confident that was wholly designed by Oculus. IMO it's a modified Oculus GO HMD attached to the PSVR Halo.

    i7-7700k, GTX 1080Ti (11G) || MSI B150m (1 USB controller) + Inateck 4-port USB to PCIe (2nd USB controller)
    Oculus Rift S
    Oculus GO
    Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,407 Valuable Player
    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.
    I wonder how many years will pass before folks start to realize - Oculus changed direction on PC-VR.
    ;)

    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case|
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,850
    Project 2501
    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.

    The graphics and improved ease of set up will keep new users if the content is there.  If the new users runaway vr is in trouble as far as faster advancement. Better hardware won't get more mainstream users to spend for that hardware. Better hardware will only make non mainstream users happy which isn't good enough 
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,251 Valuable Player
    @inovator - That's why it would be a good idea to cater for both mid-range and highend user. Like I said in another post those with Geforce 2080Ti, will look for something better then Rift -S imo. 
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,741 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    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.

    I've already gone over this but I'll go through it all again. They need high end PC VR (and Tocks) because Tock customers such as our good selves, aka early adopters, are will to pay more to get new tech early. This new tech needs to start at the Tock level where it's more expensive, as this new tech gets cheaper to manufacture it gets seen in the Tick model a few years later at a cheaper price.

    Then the cost of manufacturing comes down further and we'll start to see it in the Quest line of products a year or so later before eventually the cost has come down so much that it features in the Go line of products, either at the same time or maybe a year after that.

    This is how these things work. Like I've said before, Oculus need high end PC VR headsets so that this technology filters down through to their cheaper line of products. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SIT ON THE TECHNOLOGY USED IN THE HALF DOME PROTOTYPE FOR 9 OR 10 YEARS BECAUSE THEY NEED TO MANUFACTURE THE STUFF TO GET THE COSTS DOWN.

    It REALLY isn't rocket surgery tbh, I'm struggling to see how you're not understanding this stuff.
    "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
  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 372
    Trinity
    edited April 15
    RedRizla said:
    @inovator - That's why it would be a good idea to cater for both mid-range and highend user. Like I said in another post those with Geforce 2080Ti, will look for something better then Rift -S imo. 
    I'm sure they will. The RTX 2080Ti is a $1200+ GPU.  There's probably no reason why they've haven;t already picked up something like a Vive Pro since price doesn't seem to be the limiting factor.
    i7-7700k, GTX 1080Ti (11G) || MSI B150m (1 USB controller) + Inateck 4-port USB to PCIe (2nd USB controller)
    Oculus Rift S
    Oculus GO
    Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    snowdog said:
    Then the cost of manufacturing comes down further and we'll start to see it in the Quest line of products a year or so later before eventually the cost has come down so much that it features in the Go line of products, either at the same time or maybe a year after that.
    Agree - but there was a few cases so far  that show that isn't true though:
    1) Improve lenses came out with GO - not CV refresh
    2) Vision tracking was work on for Quest - not in half dome as we saw
    3) They rather switch to a single panel instead of using dual panels

    My point is that it doesn't have to start from the top to come down. If they set on the research - they can release at any time for any product meaning they don't have to release for the high end for it to come down to the low end - they can release it as needed for any product they wish only being limited by their own limits to keep with in a price point or the hardware they want run it with.

    This is both good and bad - but effectively - they could focus on Quest2, GO2 and Rift S2 from this point on - so long as they get more customers than before - it really doesn't matter if they have a high end headset - they can just create the high end headset in the lab and slowly bring out new features of it as they work out test runs in the factories or bring a piece of it to another headset across three different product lines. Want to sell higher end lenses? Ok - put them in the GO until they are cheaper. Higher end screens? Tell the LCD maker you will buy x amount of these screens and next year promise to buy x amount of their newer model next. Eye tracking? Give it to the model that is already using static FOVA so they don't have to change much for getting it to work (Quest and GO) then sell it in your product line later for GO and PC.
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,407 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    @inovator - That's why it would be a good idea to cater for both mid-range and highend user. Like I said in another post those with Geforce 2080Ti, will look for something better then Rift -S imo. 
    I'm sure they will. The RTX 2080Ti is a $1200+ GPU.  There's probably no reason why they've haven;t already picked up something like a Vive Pro since price doesn't seem to be the limiting factor.
    I got an EVGA RTX 2080 Ti FTW3 Ultra in Sept.
    Built this new i9 9900k rig in Jan.
    All for what I hoped would be the next great Oculus Rift. Only reason I did the above.

    Many of my flight sim comrades had already switched to other headsets, I insisted on holding out for Oculus myself as I have been well pleased with my CV1 and had a lot of faith in what they would bring out next.
    Oh well...



    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case|
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,251 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    @inovator - That's why it would be a good idea to cater for both mid-range and highend user. Like I said in another post those with Geforce 2080Ti, will look for something better then Rift -S imo. 
    I'm sure they will. The RTX 2080Ti is a $1200+ GPU.  There's probably no reason why they've haven;t already picked up something like a Vive Pro since price doesn't seem to be the limiting factor.

    Vive Pro isn't Oculus and it's Oculus who said they wanted 1 billion users in VR, or did they mean spread across different headsets when they said that?
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,741 Valuable Player
    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.

    The ways of attracting mainstream gamers (not to be confused with mainstream consumers!) to gaming in VR is twofold:

    1) Getting the cost down. Mainstream gamers tend to be less technically adept when it comes to building PCs. They tend to buy them pre built to play the latest GTA, Assassin's Creed etc and MIGHT buy a new GPU so that they can play the latest version of a big name franchise on their aging or low spec machine, assuming that they haven't bought a cheap gaming laptop.

    This is basically the average person on Steam. This is why keeping the Rift minimum specs as they are is so important and why an eye tracking and foveated rendering headset at a reasonable price is so important. They will imo buy a headset when it's at the impulse buy price of $300, so they won't be getting one until around 2026 (the CV2 S will release in 2025 and will hopefully get a price cut to that level)

    2) They need big name franchises to have VR versions. We're not too far away from seeing this happening, by the time the CV2 S comes out in 2025 we'll start seeing those big name games getting VR versions. Hell, we might even see it happening earlier if we see Microsoft bringing VR to the Xbox before then.



    We need to differentiate between mainstream consumers and mainstream gamers because they're two completely different demographics. The former is your average householder who doesn't really play games, they'll want VR for films, social media and sports events etc. The latter is your average gamer who isn't willing to upgrade their PC unless they have to to play the next GTA etc.

    For mainstream consumers to adopt VR en masse the way that DVD players etc have done the price of entry needs to come down to less than 100 dollars.
    "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
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    inovator said:
    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.

    The graphics and improved ease of set up will keep new users if the content is there.  If the new users runaway vr is in trouble as far as faster advancement. Better hardware won't get more mainstream users to spend for that hardware. Better hardware will only make non mainstream users happy which isn't good enough 
    If the graphics quality is there... but Gen1 graphics quality already leaves lots to be desired I would argue. People who are enthusiastic about VR put up with it, but the average Joe gets tired of it fast.

    I still think that Rift S is pointless product in it's form. To target the masses, with lower fidelity and not needing a PC the Quest was coming out already. The only thing that makes sense to me is them not wanting PCVR to be too far ahead in fidelity and quality, worried that such a setup would alienate their Quest target base. Same reason as when console manufactures are paying off devs to degrade games on PC for graphics and physics so consoles do not look last gen / low end.
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,291 Volunteer Moderator
    CrashFu said:

    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?
    Umm, no.
    Remember that Valve was involved with Oculus for the earlier dev kits. Valve designed all of the tech behind the major Oculus competitor Vive, and Valve wrote all of the software that powers many VR headsets (SteamVR).

    So in your analogy it would be like if Walmart consulted with Nintendo when building the Wii (because Walmart had more advanced console research at the time), Walmart designed the Xbox One for Microsoft and they wrote the OS for the PS4 and XBox One. Would you trust Walmart to make a console?

    Valve has never directly sold a self branded VR headset. But treating them like a game store that has zero experience at VR is clearly wrong.


  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,741 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    snowdog said:
    Then the cost of manufacturing comes down further and we'll start to see it in the Quest line of products a year or so later before eventually the cost has come down so much that it features in the Go line of products, either at the same time or maybe a year after that.
    Agree - but there was a few cases so far  that show that isn't true though:
    1) Improve lenses came out with GO - not CV refresh
    2) Vision tracking was work on for Quest - not in half dome as we saw
    3) They rather switch to a single panel instead of using dual panels

    My point is that it doesn't have to start from the top to come down. If they set on the research - they can release at any time for any product meaning they don't have to release for the high end for it to come down to the low end - they can release it as needed for any product they wish only being limited by their own limits to keep with in a price point or the hardware they want run it with.

    This is both good and bad - but effectively - they could focus on Quest2, GO2 and Rift S2 from this point on - so long as they get more customers than before - it really doesn't matter if they have a high end headset - they can just create the high end headset in the lab and slowly bring out new features of it as they work out test runs in the factories or bring a piece of it to another headset across three different product lines. Want to sell higher end lenses? Ok - put them in the GO until they are cheaper. Higher end screens? Tell the LCD maker you will buy x amount of these screens and next year promise to buy x amount of their newer model next. Eye tracking? Give it to the model that is already using static FOVA so they don't have to change much for getting it to work (Quest and GO) then sell it in your product line later for GO and PC.

    The screens, lenses, sound tubes etc that have filtered up are completely different for one important reason. Cost. These are cheap additions to make on their two standalone lines. Eye tracking and foveated rendering are completely different because they're A LOT more expensive to manufacture. Yes, they could have them on the Quest right now if they really wanted to, but it would be pointless doing so because it would add another couple of hundred dollars into the purchase price of the headset.

    New and more expensive technology doesn't tend to filter up for this very reason.
    "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
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    snowdog said:
    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.
    Unfortunately I see getting lower quality graphics. With the new panel we are losing true blacks, bright colors, along with a drop of max refresh rate. We get a small bump in overall res, but doubt that it will be any meaningful increase in fidelity in high res environments. Also, I do not think anybody was begging them for reducing the GPU requirements, rather the wish to release tech that allows more efficient use of already existing resources.

    I doubt they would be offering the CV2 vision with the specs you are listing as per interviews FB is convinced that the market disappears at $450 for VR and nobody would be buying.

  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,741 Valuable Player
    KoBak07 said:
    snowdog said:
    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.
    Unfortunately I see getting lower quality graphics. With the new panel we are losing true blacks, bright colors, along with a drop of max refresh rate. We get a small bump in overall res, but doubt that it will be any meaningful increase in fidelity in high res environments. Also, I do not think anybody was begging them for reducing the GPU requirements, rather the wish to release tech that allows more efficient use of already existing resources.

    I doubt they would be offering the CV2 vision with the specs you are listing as per interviews FB is convinced that the market disappears at $450 for VR and nobody would be buying.


    Tell that to the guy that played DCS World on a Rift S and almost wet his pants saying 'I can see EVERYTHING!!!'.

    And it's interview, singular. And an interview that was provided via Google Translate, as I've already mentioned.

    Oculus need the Tock.
    "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: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    snowdog said:

    The screens, lenses, sound tubes etc that have filtered up are completely different for one important reason. Cost. These are cheap additions to make on their two standalone lines. Eye tracking and foveated rendering are completely different because they're A LOT more expensive to manufacture. Yes, they could have them on the Quest right now if they really wanted to, but it would be pointless doing so because it would add another couple of hundred dollars into the purchase price of the headset.

    New and more expensive technology doesn't tend to filter up for this very reason.
    As of right now - sure - but what about the Quest 2? Quest 2 or Go 2 could easy come out with it as the over next headset will have well understanding of cost and design. The major cost for PCVR to get them is because people will expect higher res screens with them - but Quest and GO don't really have to worry about that and can already are doing the opposite and excepting static FOVA to do some of the work. Over all - it would be cheaper to add it to GO2 or Quest2 first with software that can already support it over having to start getting PCVR devs to wrap their heads around using it.

    But you are not fighting cost - you are fighting what software is already using it.
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    snowdog said:
    KoBak07 said:
    snowdog said:
    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.
    Unfortunately I see getting lower quality graphics. With the new panel we are losing true blacks, bright colors, along with a drop of max refresh rate. We get a small bump in overall res, but doubt that it will be any meaningful increase in fidelity in high res environments. Also, I do not think anybody was begging them for reducing the GPU requirements, rather the wish to release tech that allows more efficient use of already existing resources.

    I doubt they would be offering the CV2 vision with the specs you are listing as per interviews FB is convinced that the market disappears at $450 for VR and nobody would be buying.


    Tell that to the guy that played DCS World on a Rift S and almost wet his pants saying 'I can see EVERYTHING!!!'.

    And it's interview, singular. And an interview that was provided via Google Translate, as I've already mentioned.

    Oculus need the Tock.
    For now I take the world of the DCS World Sr Producer with a grain of salt as in the forum he clearly stated that he already said as much as he could since he is under an NDA with FB. I actually expect more from the upcoming performance update, which should, provided they deliver on their stated goal, make the current gen 1 headset just underutilize GPUs out there. Well not the 1060, but that card is so old by GPU standards.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,741 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    snowdog said:

    The screens, lenses, sound tubes etc that have filtered up are completely different for one important reason. Cost. These are cheap additions to make on their two standalone lines. Eye tracking and foveated rendering are completely different because they're A LOT more expensive to manufacture. Yes, they could have them on the Quest right now if they really wanted to, but it would be pointless doing so because it would add another couple of hundred dollars into the purchase price of the headset.

    New and more expensive technology doesn't tend to filter up for this very reason.
    As of right now - sure - but what about the Quest 2? Quest 2 or Go 2 could easy come out with it as the over next headset will have well understanding of cost and design. The major cost for PCVR to get them is because people will expect higher res screens with them - but Quest and GO don't really have to worry about that and can already are doing the opposite and excepting static FOVA to do some of the work. Over all - it would be cheaper to add it to GO2 or Quest2 first with software that can already support it over having to start getting PCVR devs to wrap their heads around using it.

    But you are not fighting cost - you are fighting what software is already using it.

    I've already explained this. It's going to be more expensive for it to appear on standalone headsets first and they need to keep the price of those headsets as low as they can so that people will buy them.

    People that will buy the Tock won't mind spending an extra 200 dollars on new technology. The Tock is aimed at the early adopter enthusiast demographic. We won't see that appearing in those standalone headsets until the manufacturing cost has come RIGHT down. The Tick is aimed at people that aren't willing to pay as much for a VR experience and the standalone are aimed at people that are willing to pay even LESS to get into VR.
    "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
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,103 Valuable Player
    KoBak07 said:
    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.
    In your original argument, you said that Lenovo produces "junk." And now you are arguing that they are "not setting the world on fire." The argument dodge is quite apparent. Unless you believe that products are limited to only those two options? lol


    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.

    You are focused on the wrong thing here. The point is that Facebook owns these Products, and Facebook has allowed multiple organizations to build their products: Samsung (GearVR), Oculus (Rift CV1, Quest), Xiaomi (GO), Lenovo (Rift-S). Yet for some reason you want to focus on the Lenovo partnership and exaggerate the situation in a negative manner.


    Sorry, but Lenovo did not bring anything to market to date in this space that is pushing for a better VR immersion.

    Maybe not in the past, but with the Rift-S they just changed all that. Now Lenovo helped bring the best in class for Inside-Out Tracking PCVR.


    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.

    While all software can benefit from better hardware, there is hardly a plethora of AAA VR Software experiences in demand of new hardware.

    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: 14,103 Valuable Player
    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

    We already had the hardware first with the demo kits, and the CV1 release of both Vive and Rift. Now all we need is Software. Lots of lots of true AAA Software. Right now AAA VR titles are measured in the dozen. Singular.

    Software is not a red herring in this case. I know you want it to be, because you love to argue in favor of Hardware. But when it comes to this stage of VR, Software is the true necessity and "next gen Hardware" is the true Red Herring.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    I feel like I can be mean just a bit and take a ban warring:) But I feel like you can just shut the fuck up for once:) Thanks!


    Mradr said:

    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.

    Funny how your response to losing an argument is to either:   Flagrantly violate the forum rules yourself,  or accuse the other person of violating rules.  Even funnier that you would talk about "keeping things civil, to prevent wars"  considering all the pages-long flamewars you have with Zenbane on a daily basis.

    Typical rich kid,  thinks that laws and civility only matter when it's in his favor :wink:

    Also, if any of you thinks 'rich kid' is an insult?  If that's the most offensive thing you've ever been called?  That kinda proves you're living a privileged life.

    To put things into perspective for some of you, most people in the Middle Class still think that a $1000 gaming PC and a $400 VR system is a lot to spend for entertainment, compared to getting a new game console and a reasonably sized TV for half the total price.

    Most people cannot afford to drop $1400 on a PC and VR system one year and then replace it with a system twice as expensive only a couple years later!   If you're in a position to even consider doing that, then You. Are. Financially. Privileged. It has nothing to do with being "a real enthusiast" or not.

    In fact, if you want to have a "Who's the real enthusiast" contest,  I'M the person who worked myself half to death at a horrible, underpaying job for years, saving my extra money and living as frugally as possible, so that I could replace my decade-old PC and buy the CV1 at release.  I did all of that because I believe so strongly in the medium of VR, and wanted to be there on Day 1 so I could be an ambassador for the technology. 

    And if you want to talk about which company is the one "For enthusiasts", I don't think it's any of the companies who are pandering to the wealthiest of already-existing VR users by putting increasingly expensive devices on the market. All they're doing is making a small, privileged group of people feel like enthusiasts, by isolating them from the majority who can't afford the high end.

    The real enthusiast companies, I think, are the ones raising the bar for the quality of entry-level devices. With the Rift-S, Oculus is making it possible for far more people to get an enthusiast-quality experience.   "It's not enthusiast-quality because it doesn't have the highest specs or pricetag!"  Shut up.  If it impresses a flight sim developer, then it objectively qualifies as enthusiast-quality. 

    And just as important, a company that cares about enthusiasts is going to be the one ensuring that there is high-quality content available for them.. Oculus creates that content, they fund others so they can make that content,  they grow the market and establish hardware standards so that third-parties will be confident they'll have a market to sell to and know what they're developing for...

    Meanwhile the companies putting out the most expensive hardware are leaving you with an actual refuse-pit of content.  The best of it: titles that are already on Oculus Home or that will be there soon. The vast majority: shovelware that wasn't good enough to pass minimal curation.  But surely, that shovelware will be good enough for an enthusiast like you if you can view it at a slightly higher FoV or resolution, right?

    Like buying a $1000 stereo and only using it to listen to CD's and low-quality MP3.   Personally, I think it's more "enthusiast" to listen to high-grade vinyl on a $400 stereo.  But what do I know, I'm just a bitter poor person, right? 

    :kissing_heart:

    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    Zenbane said:
    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

    We already had the hardware first with the demo kits, and the CV1 release of both Vive and Rift. Now all we need is Software. Lots of lots of true AAA Software. Right now AAA VR titles are measured in the dozen. Singular.

    Software is not a red herring in this case. I know you want it to be, because you love to argue in favor of Hardware. But when it comes to this stage of VR, Software is the true necessity and "next gen Hardware" is the true Red Herring.
    No, I think you miss understand - when I said hardware/customers < I was referring to customers in this case as hardware units. Over all we need hardware/customers out there in the public before more/bigger software companies jump into VR for us. That hardware/customer wont be PCVR - it'll be Quest (hopefully) out selling and making a bight future for VR as a whole. I can't agree and then going saying we need bigger/stronger hardware:)) that doesn't make sense LOL

    In this case I believe  software is - at least - in terms of what we need to be there first  - as in we need Quest out on the market so it can pull in some users - that will then bring in software - rinse and repeat.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,348 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    CrashFu said:
    Mradr said:
    I feel like I can be mean just a bit and take a ban warring:) But I feel like you can just shut the fuck up for once:) Thanks!


    Mradr said:

    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.

    Funny how your response to losing an argument is to either:   Flagrantly violate the forum rules yourself,  or accuse the other person of violating rules.  Even funnier that you would talk about "keeping things civil, to prevent wars"  considering all the pages-long flamewars you have with Zenbane on a daily basis.

    Typical rich kid,  thinks that laws and civility only matter when it's in his favor :wink:

    Also, if any of you thinks 'rich kid' is an insult?  If that's the most offensive thing you've ever been called?  That kinda proves you're living a privileged life.

    To put things into perspective for some of you, most people in the Middle Class still think that a $1000 gaming PC and a $400 VR system is a lot to spend for entertainment, compared to getting a new game console and a reasonably sized TV for half the total price.

    Most people cannot afford to drop $1400 on a PC and VR system one year and then replace it with a system twice as expensive only a couple years later!   If you're in a position to even consider doing that, then You. Are. Financially. Privileged. It has nothing to do with being "a real enthusiast" or not.

    In fact, if you want to have a "Who's the real enthusiast" contest,  I'M the person who worked myself half to death at a horrible, underpaying job for years, saving my extra money and living as frugally as possible, so that I could replace my decade-old PC and buy the CV1 at release.  I did all of that because I believe so strongly in the medium of VR, and wanted to be there on Day 1 so I could be an ambassador for the technology. 

    And if you want to talk about which company is the one "For enthusiasts", I don't think it's any of the companies who are pandering to the wealthiest of already-existing VR users by putting increasingly expensive devices on the market. All they're doing is making a small, privileged group of people feel like enthusiasts, by isolating them from the majority who can't afford the high end.

    The real enthusiast companies, I think, are the ones raising the bar for the quality of entry-level devices. With the Rift-S, Oculus is making it possible for far more people to get an enthusiast-quality experience.   "It's not enthusiast-quality because it doesn't have the highest specs or pricetag!"  Shut up.  If it impresses a flight sim developer, then it objectively qualifies as enthusiast-quality. 

    And just as important, a company that cares about enthusiasts is going to be the one ensuring that there is high-quality content available for them.. Oculus creates that content, they fund others so they can make that content,  they grow the market and establish hardware standards so that third-parties will be confident they'll have a market to sell to and know what they're developing for...

    Meanwhile the companies putting out the most expensive hardware are leaving you with an actual refuse-pit of content.  The best of it: titles that are already on Oculus Home or that will be there soon. The vast majority: shovelware that wasn't good enough to pass minimal curation.  But surely, that shovelware will be good enough for an enthusiast like you if you can view it at a slightly higher FoV or resolution, right?

    Like buying a $1000 stereo and only using it to listen to CD's and low-quality MP3.   Personally, I think it's more "enthusiast" to listen to high-grade vinyl on a $400 stereo.  But what do I know, I'm just a bitter poor person, right? 

    :kissing_heart:

    I been call far worst and live far worst with little to money for years:) your argument doesn't hold and I already said I would gladly take the rap for it because you are calling everyone a rich boy for wanting more and not less. Sinking ships don't bother me sweetie:)) Also, Zen and I have something special:)) get over it!

    Mhmm ok - so far you said what I said about Rift S still being a good value for its money - witch I never said wasn't. Yes yes, please do go on:)

    So you basically are saying they should never go past the $450 range and stay under that and try to always focus on lowering the price. Hey Snowdog - basically he is saying your 600 headset isnt going to work either:) It'll cost too much and that isn't what a company should be aiming for XD

    Honestly - the only reason your argument comes out as clean as it does is because you are always targing the 1400 + range or the 1000+ headsets - Hell who could be against that:)? I HAVE YET to see you comment on the 800-600 range for a device. I have YET to see you talk about eye tracking technology helping to keep cost of entry low. I have YET to see you talk about any software improvements coming down the pipe line. I have YET to see you talk about how GPU cost are going to come back down later in the year. You ONLY talk about how things are over price in the 1400+ or 1000+ headset range. Where is your comments about the other factors? What about the fact that lenses could improve our target render meaning we don't need to RENDER higher for the wrapping effect. What are your thoughts on that technology? What if those type of lenses add a bunch of cost ? Would it still not be worth it? As you answer these - price will always jump back up quickly because they are advancements that need to have their research paid off - but at the end of the day - they offer a BIGGER reason to do them than to say VR cost too much. Snowdog see this - I know he see this - and we BOTH agree on this fact. Another 200$ isn't going to kill a PCVR if the advancement is there for it. I whole heartily am against trying to keep prices low if they are going to mess up future advancements are just around the bin. 

    Hell half your argument doesn't even stand if you break it down. 1400+ for a computer XD? What? You can build a PCVR for around 800 and the headset will cost what the headset cost. Hell if you want to take this to the next step - Quest will have a computer already for you - so your total entry cost into VR starts at $200 and then up to $499 then finally up to 1000$ for PCVR for your total cost of owner ship.

    You (ignore it says Oculus - that is just how the show went - funny esp though):


    Snowdog and I:

  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    Zenbane said:
    KoBak07 said:
    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.
    In your original argument, you said that Lenovo produces "junk." And now you are arguing that they are "not setting the world on fire." The argument dodge is quite apparent. Unless you believe that products are limited to only those two options? lol


    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.

    You are focused on the wrong thing here. The point is that Facebook owns these Products, and Facebook has allowed multiple organizations to build their products: Samsung (GearVR), Oculus (Rift CV1, Quest), Xiaomi (GO), Lenovo (Rift-S). Yet for some reason you want to focus on the Lenovo partnership and exaggerate the situation in a negative manner.


    Sorry, but Lenovo did not bring anything to market to date in this space that is pushing for a better VR immersion.

    Maybe not in the past, but with the Rift-S they just changed all that. Now Lenovo helped bring the best in class for Inside-Out Tracking PCVR.


    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.

    While all software can benefit from better hardware, there is hardly a plethora of AAA VR Software experiences in demand of new hardware.

    Lenovo has only produced low end, cheap WMR headsets - thus the label "junk". Their PC lineup consists of nothing outstanding, just cheap plastic boxes of different sizes... Dont' worry, I get, it that different people look for different things in products, that fit their needs. To me Oculus (used to) be a high-end brand, and Lenovo is everything but that.

    I still think, that most likely a decision was made at FB in Q3 last year to just take the cheap Lenovo, then as quickly as possible snap on the Oculus tracking and controller as an upgrade (this is actually a real upgrade) and call it a day for PCVR. Not surprised that some people jumped ship and not wanting to play the PR smile while talking about it.

    The lack of AAA titles are a direct result of how the industry changed over the last decade+. It used to be that devs wanted to blow people away with creating worlds and experiences, now mostly its just about making the bucks, while catering to the lowest hardware out there, and banging out the next re-iteration of the "whatever 21".

  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,741 Valuable Player
    Oculus still is a high end brand with a soon to be released high end headset. It doesn't just come down to specs. For my money, despite the 2K resolution, the soon to be released Acer Ojo and HP Reverb are both mi range headsets. Why? Because the tracking isn't good enough for them or any other WVR headsets to be considered to be high end headsets.

    All hands on reports for the Rift S have been positive so far despite the trade offs both Oculus and Lenovo made during the design of the thing.
    "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
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    snowdog said:
    Oculus still is a high end brand with a soon to be released high end headset. It doesn't just come down to specs. For my money, despite the 2K resolution, the soon to be released Acer Ojo and HP Reverb are both mi range headsets. Why? Because the tracking isn't good enough for them or any other WVR headsets to be considered to be high end headsets.

    All hands on reports for the Rift S have been positive so far despite the trade offs both Oculus and Lenovo made during the design of the thing.
    So that high end headset is coming soon or in 2022?
  • KlodsBrikKlodsBrik Posts: 1,185
    Wintermute
    LOL ... This thred.4 days, 207 posts ... No one is holding their breath! ( I will prolly have to edit this after posting )

    Just want to add that in my belive their is several reasons Oculus is waiting to pull of cv2.
     High res, high fov hmd's great idea !! Well, once the pc setup will be affordable for the "general PC gamer", and most important:
    When some GPU's arrive that will actually be able to make us take advantage of maxing out settings on res and fov.


    Be good, die great !
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,741 Valuable Player
    KoBak07 said:
    snowdog said:
    Oculus still is a high end brand with a soon to be released high end headset. It doesn't just come down to specs. For my money, despite the 2K resolution, the soon to be released Acer Ojo and HP Reverb are both mi range headsets. Why? Because the tracking isn't good enough for them or any other WVR headsets to be considered to be high end headsets.

    All hands on reports for the Rift S have been positive so far despite the trade offs both Oculus and Lenovo made during the design of the thing.
    So that high end headset is coming soon or in 2022?

    Both. The Rift S is a high end headset coming in a few weeks and the CV2 will be the next one coming in 2022.

    The Rift S is only a notch below the Vive Pro in terms of clarity, it's going to be a high end headset.
    "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
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,103 Valuable Player
    edited April 15
    KoBak07 said:
    Lenovo has only produced low end, cheap WMR headsets - thus the label "junk".

    You are still dodging. The Lenovo Explorter received good reviews on Amazon (by Consumers) and on places like Trusted. Low end and cheap are not the labels for "junk" by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is that you are 100% wrong to call Lenovo's products "junk," but it seems you are going to double-down for arguments sake. I'll continue to point out how wrong it is because the wrongfulness of your statement is the sole basis for your exaggeration of the Rift-S situation.

    Calling something "junk" just because it is cheap is a bit silly considering that the Oculus Rift + Touch dropped from $800 total down to $349. Math isn't on your side here.

    I still think, that most likely a decision was made at FB in Q3 last year to just take the cheap Lenovo, then as quickly as possible snap on the Oculus tracking and controller as an upgrade (this is actually a real upgrade) and call it a day for PCVR. Not surprised that some people jumped ship and not wanting to play the PR smile while talking about it.

    Not surprised to see you try to downplay the situation considering your past hyperbole. Granted, you are overlooking huge factors like the 5-cameras on the Rift-S which makes it the most precise Inside-Out Tracking HMD on the market.


    The lack of AAA titles are a direct result of how the industry changed over the last decade+. It used to be that devs wanted to blow people away with creating worlds and experiences, now mostly its just about making the bucks, while catering to the lowest hardware out there, and banging out the next re-iteration of the "whatever 21".


    None of that is even remotely accurate. AAA titles take 3-5 years on average. We just now barely hit the 3 year mark of mainstream PCVR. Time is needed to allow for true AAA Software releases. But we need something in the meantime, which is why we get the types of experiences found today.

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
Sign In or Register to comment.