cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Oculus Explains Why It Doesn’t Think the Time is Right for ‘Rift 2’ or ‘Rift Pro’

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

“VR is going to keep progressing. So, beyond and shadow of a doubt, at some point we will have a next generation where we add some sort of feature that breaks all of the old stuff and makes it either not work, or makes it seem obsolete. Our goal is not to do that right now. Our goal is to bring as many people into the ecosystem as possible. Bifurcating the ecosystem with a Rift and, say, a Rift 2 […] is not the right thing to do right now.”


https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-explains-timing-rift-2-rift-pro/?fbclid=IwAR37hW4dGpGnISlto-mubuiS2Z...

https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
179 REPLIES 179

Luciferous
Consultant

RedRizla said:

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now. 

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.




Look on the bright side give oculus 2 years and today’s expensive headsets will be on your head For half the price ?

KoBak07
Protege

RedRizla said:

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now. 

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.




I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

KoBak07 said:


RedRizla said:

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now. 

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.




I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.



I didn't say a less hassle free headset would bring in more headset sales, but that might help and could be one of the reason why Oculus got shut of the sensors. I said a cheaper headset might bring in more sales and that is what Oculus is trying to do.

The CV1 is a 3 yrs old headset and I paid £599 when it hit the shelves not £399. 

Obviously Oculus will have to look at the PC -VR headset market again if their headsets are cheap and still not selling, but that's the same for all bushiness trying to make a profit not just Oculus.

People should consider themselves lucky that Oculus is the only ones who are making decent VR games instead of bashing them. After all what the point of having an expensive headset without having good VR games? Are you going to rely on Valve making these games because it will be a long wait if people are expecting Valve to do what Oculus is doing when it comes to VR games. I can't think of a game Valve has even made for their VR headsets yet.




RedRizla
Honored Visionary


Look on the bright side give oculus 2 years and today’s expensive headsets will be on your head For half the price 

That works, it will just be like buying a Geforce 2080Ti in 2 years times, or maybe not with Nvida's crazy pricing. I think a most people wait for prices to drop. I know I do with Nvidia graphics cards and even more so now because of their pricing.

SkScotchegg
Expert Trustee
Surely they should of catered to the existing Rift users as well as we're marketing their HMD too. And we live in a world now where people upgrade their cars, phones, pc's all the time, and many of us want to upgrade our Rift experience and kinda have zero options. We either wait or go Valve Index etc. I'm getting Valve Index just because of the increased FOV but if Rift S had matched that FOV then I would have happily of stayed.

The surveys done on these forums already show that a lot of people are considering moving to other HMD's such as the Valve Index, regardless of price.

Also one more thing I keep hearing people say is that it was "Oculus choice as to weather or not to bring out a more expensive headset"...I don't agree with that statement, that the headset had to be more "expensive", why couldn't it be £400 or £450, why does everyone assume an upgrade is £800+

I still think they could have left the head-strap and headphones alone and just increased the resolution slightly and increase the FOV to 135° and kept the price around £400. This would have kept us happy.

Don't get me wrong, I love my CV1, and my GO, and I will 100% buy CV2 and Quest etc etc from Oculus, Oculus is a great company and my CV1 will always hold a special place in my heart, in fact I'm going to keep my CV1 forever, I'm never going to sell it, when I die I'm going to be buried whilst wearing my CV1 and my gravestone will say, "Lived a full life - IN VR - 1983 - 2083".  😄

...but still...I think they made a bad decision with Rift S, that's my 2 pence worth anyways.

EDIT: After reading the full Article of what Oculus said too, he kept saying they didn't want to introduce a new feature that would break the eco-system...but why not increase the FOV? How would that of broke the eco-system?
UK: England - Leeds - - RTX 2080 - Rift CV1 & Rift S - Make love, not war - See you in the Oasis!

KoBak07
Protege

RedRizla said:


KoBak07 said:


RedRizla said:

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now. 

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.




I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.



I didn't say a less hassle free headset would bring in more headset sales, but that might help and could be one of the reason why Oculus got shut of the sensors. I said a cheaper headset might bring in more sales and that is what Oculus is trying to do.

The CV1 is a 3 yrs old headset and I paid £599 when it hit the shelves not £399. 

Obviously Oculus will have to look at the PC -VR headset market again if their headsets are cheap and still not selling, but that's the same for all bushiness trying to make a profit not just Oculus.

People should consider themselves lucky that Oculus is the only ones who are making decent VR games instead of bashing them. After all what the point of having an expensive headset without having good VR games? Are you going to rely on Valve making these games because it will be a long wait if people are expecting Valve to do what Oculus is doing when it comes to VR games. I can't think of a game Valve has even made for their VR headsets yet.






Yes, you said a cheaper headset could bring in more sales. CV1 + touch kit has been selling for $399 since 2017, dropping to 349 during holiday sales, then staying there since xmas 2018. I don't think it matters from a consumer perspective what it was going for at launch.

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to bash them, just disappointed with the direction they are taking PCVR, by trying to keep it tied close to the low end performance target of the Quest.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary
@SkScotchegg - I much prefer the halo design for comfort because without VR Cover my CV1 is really uncomfortable. I know it's the same for a lot of people with the current CV1 and that's why they have purchased VR Cover.

We don't know yet if they are going to include some headphones for Rift -S, but they will be better then the CV1 design which had problems with the Right side speaker going out due to the ribbon cable. So CV1 was not the best design if you ask me.

The Lcd panel will look just as good as Oculus Quest because it reduces screen door better and uses 3 pixels instead of 2 pixels.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

KoBak07 said:

Yes, you said a cheaper headset could bring in more sales. CV1 + touch kit has been selling for $399 since 2017, dropping to 349 during holiday sales, then staying there since xmas 2018. I don't think it matters from a consumer perspective what it was going for at launch.

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to bash them, just disappointed with the direction they are taking PCVR, by trying to keep it tied close to the low end performance target of the Quest.



Oculus are catering for a large amount of people who are using a Geforce 1060 1070 & 1080. You just have to look at the steam stats to see that there's not a lot of people using a Geforce 2080Ti due to it's price.

You talk about a higher end VR headset, but do you realise higher resolution displays would need something like a Geforce 2080Ti to get a good experience in game like SkyRim etc? Oculus Quest can use higher resolution displays because you won't be getting games like SkyRim in Oculus Quest.

Anonymous
Not applicable

KoBak07 said:


RedRizla said:

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now. 

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.




I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.



It isn't the simpler set up that's going to appeal but the fact that you only need 1 USB port. Needing 3+ USB ports for the current Rift prevents it being used on most laptops.

Luciferous
Consultant

RedRizla said:


KoBak07 said:

Yes, you said a cheaper headset could bring in more sales. CV1 + touch kit has been selling for $399 since 2017, dropping to 349 during holiday sales, then staying there since xmas 2018. I don't think it matters from a consumer perspective what it was going for at launch.

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to bash them, just disappointed with the direction they are taking PCVR, by trying to keep it tied close to the low end performance target of the Quest.



Oculus are catering for a large amount of people who are using a Geforce 1060 1070 & 1080. You just have to look at the steam stats to see that there's not a lot of people using a Geforce 2080Ti due to it's price.

You talk about a higher end VR headset, but do you realise higher resolution displays would need something like a Geforce 2080Ti to get a good experience in game like SkyRim etc? Oculus Quest can use higher resolution displays because you won't be getting games like SkyRim in Oculus Quest.

Valve quoted on the leaked Index steam page 980 min recommended 1070. I am hoping that is true.