cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Why don't one of the big VR companies make a VR headset with a decent resolution?

RedRizla
Honored Visionary
I was just wondering why one of the big VR companies like Oculus, Valve & HTC, don't give us the choice of having a really good resolution displays like the HP Reverb? I know some people will say it's because not everyone has the graphics card to run VR at high resolutions, but the HP Reverb is capable of running well on just a Geforce 1080ti and plenty of people have those graphics cards. HP also said there was huge demand for their VR Headset, which they didn't expect, but they soon realized this was due to the fact no other headset was pushing their resolutions and the sim community especially were really interested.
Given that the sim community isn't what you would call a small community, (hence the reason why some companies make expensive steering wheels and Hotas Joysticks) I just thought one of the bigger VR companies might have given the sim enthusiasts a decent resolution headset. But it's not only sim enthusiast I'm talking about here because other games will run good with these higher resolution. We all know sims can be demanding, so other games should have no problems.
I do get why Oculus want to cater for the lower end VR market and for people with a Geforce 1060, but they can still cater for these people and give people with a higher end computers something to shout about. Surly it can't be that hard to make a line of VR headsets with just higher resolution displays like the HP Reverb.
Since Oculus are not currently catering for the higher end Graphics cards, it is just forcing me to look elsewhere for a VR headset and I don't really want to do tbh.
48 REPLIES 48

Anonymous
Not applicable
Because of eye tracking...

Once that is on the table that will fix everything you said above:)

To be real here - the number of pixels to really get what we would call high-def would be something in the 16k by 16k and there isn't really an option for that yet. The other side of the flip coin is that the higher we go in res - the more it cost and there for means less people in the area where they need massive amounts of people to be in.

What does that mean? Well it means we wont see 1000$ headsets from Oculus anymore... their goal now is to get in as many people as they can so they can sell headsets on the lower end to create demand and growth from the every day user. Once the growth is there - then they might think about creating a "pro" version in the future. As of right now - it doesn't fit to be their plans though as Quest seems to show that lower cost devices are still a better way to get more users in than higher cost ones.

Plus we can't look at the HMD companies alone - there are other markets that also really impact the rest of industry as well such as supply shortages on Intel, AMD, AMD/GPUs, Nivida/GPUs etc. Then the high cost of that hardware as well when there is said shortages or when they want to be greedy such as NV/GPUs. 

At the start of VR alone there was the mining craze that created all shorts of problems let alone that is when consoles prices were also starting to look good compare to buying/building a computer. That might even start to become even more real with the trade war between China and America as tech continues to get tax more and more.

As for why Oculus can't do both - who knows? Seems silly to me not to support both side of the coin... at the same time - it does cost money to make a new design. The Rift S is the 1.5 upgrade over CV1, so I guess you could call that the "pro" version Oculus wanted to release to match the new tracking path they're moving towards over external sensors. 

Over all - if Oculus doesn't carter to you though - don't be scare to look else where. I know a lot of people bash others here for going down another route - but money is power - so vote with your wallet if you are not happy about something from another company. If you like to wait - there is still OC6 just around the corner as well. Rumor is there might be something new they want to show off.. whatever that means:)?

https://www.oculusconnect.com/
 Wed, Sep 25, 2019 – Thu, Sep 26, 2019

RedRizla
Honored Visionary
@Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i. If there's high demand for something it means people want it. Why does someone with a higher end Graphics card want to bother with the low resolution of Rift S that mainly caters for graphics card starting with the Geforce 1060?
The only reason you would want Rift S and not something higher with a higher resolution is if you have a Geforce 1060 or Geforce 1080. You can even use the Valve index with a Geforce 1080 and that doesn't have eye tracking either.

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:

@Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i.


Yes, but they also have a high return rate as well let alone the supply (shortages) to supply their current customers - so HP really isn't a good example in all this =/

The point is just because you can make a higher end product - it doesn't means it'll always be good as well. You need supply chains that can keep up with demands. Along with that - HP headset doesn't have the best tracking either - something money also has to be spent on and R/D done for. WMR did the tracking for HP and it really isn't that great when we talk about tracking compare to a 4 camera system for example that we see on Rift S. 

There is a whole list of things that make a good HMD. Resoultion alone isn't the day and night game changer to making a better headset. There is also the store, the community, the easy of access (SDK) and etc that also needs to be in place and easy to use. Without all that - you could make the best headset in the world - but it'll just be too hard to use and setup that most people will give up on. We saw some of that with the Pimax alone already.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

Mradr said:


RedRizla said:

@Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i.


Yes, but they also have a high return rate as well let alone the supply (shortages) to supply their current customers - so HP really isn't a good example in all this =/


Well then you obviously haven't read that HP have fixed the issues. It was down to some components with a high tolerance instead of a low tolerance and also a simple clip. Should we now derail the thread and start talking about problems with all the current VR headsets instead now?

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:


Mradr said:


RedRizla said:

@Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i.


Yes, but they also have a high return rate as well let alone the supply (shortages) to supply their current customers - so HP really isn't a good example in all this =/


Well then you obviously haven't read that HP have fixed the issues. It was down to some components with a high tolerance instead of a low tolerance and also a simple clip. Should we now derail the thread and start talking about problems with all the current VR headsets instead now?


Problems of each headset comes down to the price at witch they are set at or limited to with their technology witch is what I pointed out already. It's not a derail - it's just a understanding that everyone needs to understand before moving on calling out a company on why they don't make a higher end headset.

What would be the point if they can't keep up with supply, increasing FOV if the lenses create distortion, or even keeping prices with in reason (every other $1.5k+ headset).

Anonymous
Not applicable
Heck Oculus at least in my opinion, did not even want to give us an updated Rift. Pretty sure they caved into the 
vocal majority that clamored for one, as well as seeing what others were bringing out. So they called Lenovo and told them to build them something fast that they could bring to market as well.

So while Oculus still says PC-VR is important to their overall strategy, currently I believe the Rift for them is the red headed stepchild.
It will be interesting to see where their focus lies going forward now that all three headsets are on the market.

At one time I believe Oculus would have been in best position to make the aforementioned headset, not sure that is the case today.

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

Mradr said:

Problems of each headset comes down to the price at witch they are set at or limited to with their technology witch is what I pointed out already. It's not a derail - it's just a understanding that everyone needs to understand before moving on calling out a company on why they don't make a higher end headset.

What would be the point if they can't keep up with supply, increasing FOV if the lenses create distortion, or even keeping prices with in reason (every other $1.5k+ headset).

Well if they can't keep up with supply then they shouldn't really call themselves a company. The Rift S is £399 right now. How much do you think it would cost to put the HP displays in a Rift S? Do you seriously think that would increase the cost to $1.5 when the HP Reverb sells for £594? I'd say it would cost no more then maybe £200 more to put them displays in a Rift S, bringing the total to £599.

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:
Well if they can't keep up with supply then they shouldn't really call themselves a company. The Rift S is £399 right now. How much do you think it would cost to put the HP displays in a Rift S? Do you seriously think that would increase the cost to $1.5 when the HP Reverb sells for £594? I'd say it would cost no more then maybe £200 more to put them displays in a Rift S, bringing the total to £599.

Hmmm so Intel isn't a company:)? I think that is a bit of poor reasoning to say that. Well with better controllers and extra cameras we be looking at $699 or $749 realistically. Hey, as I said - I think they could support a higher end headset as well and I don't understand why they don't really. It's just the numbers they saw told them that range of number didn't sell that many headsets compare to the $399 range did.


It's possible this OC6 they might show off a headset like that such as the HD2 with eye tracking that can support 4k by 4k displays in that $749 range. Short of that - Rift S was more of a time issue from what it sounds like and there for was more of a drop in placement because Quest had bigger and better specs than the CV1. I mean going off what I said before about supply - Rift S is a supply chain dream when you break it down compare to the CV1 and allows a much lower price than the CV1 could such as for dual screens vs one, no moving parts, more shell design plastic vs multi layer design, less breakable external parts, no external "parts" such as cameras, easy to setup, even added a feature base off already existing changes, etc


My prediction is going forward here - what makes a headset stand out wont be the higher resolution or specs that one can offer in a headset - but what technology are they going to use to help support the higher specs + keep it still usable to the general public in terms of cost and support. What I mean is - that it's too late for Oculus to focus on a "pro" version of a headset now - they are better off just aiming for the next leap to better support higher end specs instead.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
Its interesting to consider that Samsung monopolises the panel business - and that the majority of these available consumer headsets use their product. It is also interesting to consider those other panel manufacturers that also use Samsung (Sony being one of the big surprises - entering into a unique agreement soon after the GearVR).

We were going to see other new resolution and higher performance platforms enter the market, and had seen a number of prototypes, like the ambitious Acer system (image) - but with a plateauing of the consumer VR market - the economics of starting up a new fabrication operation to support significantly lower than promised numbers has meant we are at this point were the no one is making any major advances in resolution - and even the work on eye-tracking seems to have hit some issues.  

Kind of explains why the Half Dome prototype never materialised (at this point), and why many have placed all their hopes on the Standalone approach, while leaving high-end as a pet-project of Valve. 

eww2za6zyhao.png

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