cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Please say it ain't true oculus!

inovator
Consultant
Additional  leaks of the new quest have come out showing the lens side of the headset. Reviewer Sabastien had some interesting comments. He said it looked like the lenses were rift s lenses to give a  better visual with less pixels. He believes this may be a quest light with the same 835 snapdragon. The extra new view confirms it doesn't appear to have a physical ipd. Of course is ighter. And he thinks it may be heavily subsidized to make it cheap. Please say it ain't true oculus that this will be the only headset announced  along with some games. Please announce a kick ass headset  or you will have more people disappointed than ever. I really believe there will be something much better announced to the enthusiasts. If not everyone just should face the fact that all facebook may do is create headsrmets with slow cheap improvements to get the goal of a billion users into vr. 

128 REPLIES 128

pyroth309
Visionary
Honestly, while the Rift-S wasn't for me because I had an Odyssey+ before it was announced, I think Facebook made a smart move and benefited greatly by having an affordable headset option for the release of Alyx, a true AAA title of a well known franchise. They probably would have sold a lot more if it wasn't for Covid shortages. I'm sure there's no remorse internally of going with the Rift-S over a CV2/high end option when the sales of it seem strong since it's been out of stock for months. I'm also sure Valve has no regrets either with their high end offering since there's still a several month long backorder for Index.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
It was an interesting writeup @RuneSR2  - but that Verge piece left a lot to be questioned.
It did not factor in the purchases that the VR operation had made, it did not separate software, from hardware sales. And it also left an incredible hole in if it was quoting the complete amount, or a factor based on estimation. Obviously the Oculus hardware business has been better than CV1 days. The Rift-S and obviously the Quest has been a shot in the sales arm, and even with the limited production run (forced on Oculus by Facebook management, that came back to bite them (engineered scarcity)) ,they have seen a continued uptake for the at least the Quest. But it has not hit key goals why a "low cost" solution has been injected to turn this into a two horse race.

But the Verge also forgot to factor in Lenovo into the pricing, and payments, as they receive a "undisclosed" percentage of Rift-S sales - and also gets paid for fabrication of Go and Quest (until recently). I get this piece was more a fluff piece to promote VR and Facebook, and skirted the detail research that others of us would have to carry out - but like a recent graph promoted by a certain news service that showed Oculus ahead of all headset sales, including the amassed Sony PSVR ranks!. A big pitch of salt is needed. Always interesting how some writers quickly forget the Oculus Go failure in  China, that had been planned to play a big part in hitting their sales numbers, and that many of the Rift-S sales were like for like replacements of CV1 sales as owners were "forced" to move away from the discontinued platform. 

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

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

RuneSR2 said:

I think most agree that VR is awesome - so why doesn't it sell to the masses?


I think there's a simple answer to that Question. You have to cater for a very large amount of people if you want to sell something to a large amount of people. A cheap Oculus Quest might sell to a large amount of people, but look what happened to a cheap VR Headset like the Oculus GO and to the cheap WMR VR headsets. They just didn't get very far unless I'm mistaken.
This is just my opinion and it's just looking at the PC -VR side of things and not standalone VR. I think people have got too used to playing on anything from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor. I'm usually always asked the question when people have tried my Oculus CV1 VR headset -Why it so blurry? I have now made a habit of showing them the HP Reverb after showing the Oculus CV1 and they tell me how much better it looks.
I think once VR doesn't look like it's a step back from a 1080p monitor that's when more PC users will buy into PC -VR. Lets see what happens with the HP G2 with it's higher resolution displays. Lets see if it makes a difference to the PC market because that's the only way to tell if the lack of sales is about visuals. There's only HP that are selling a VR headset with high resolution displays for relatively cheap price compared to the rest of the crowd, so lets just wait and see.
I do think it's a great idea for Oculus Facebook to also try and keep getting more people into VR with a cheap standalone VR headset and I hope it does well. Nobody knows the resolution of this new standalone headset yet either.


inovator
Consultant

RedRizla said:


RuneSR2 said:

I think most agree that VR is awesome - so why doesn't it sell to the masses?


I think there's a simple answer to that Question. You have to cater for a very large amount of people if you want to sell something to a large amount of people. A cheap Oculus Quest might sell to a large amount of people, but look what happened to a cheap VR Headset like the Oculus GO and to the cheap WMR VR headsets. They just didn't get very far unless I'm mistaken.
This is just my opinion and it's just looking at the PC -VR side of things and not standalone VR. I think people have got too used to playing on anything from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor. I'm usually always asked the question when people have tried my Oculus CV1 VR headset -Why it so blurry? I have now made a habit of showing them the HP Reverb after showing the Oculus CV1 and they tell me how much better it looks.
I think once VR doesn't look like it's a step back from a at-least a 1080p monitor that's when more PC users will buy into PC -VR. Lets see what happens with the HP G2 with it's higher resolution displays. Lets see if it makes a difference to the PC market because the only way to tell if some of this is about visuals.
I do think it's a great idea for Oculus Facebook to also try and keep getting more people into VR with a cheap standalone VR headset and I hope it does well. Nobody knows the resolution of this new standalone headset yet either.




I think in addition to content you need what you mentioned very clear visuals and I also feel a much lighter headset is needed for the masses. Headsets are still very big and bulky for the masses to accept in my opinion. 

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

inovator said:


RedRizla said:


RuneSR2 said:

I think most agree that VR is awesome - so why doesn't it sell to the masses?


I think there's a simple answer to that Question. You have to cater for a very large amount of people if you want to sell something to a large amount of people. A cheap Oculus Quest might sell to a large amount of people, but look what happened to a cheap VR Headset like the Oculus GO and to the cheap WMR VR headsets. They just didn't get very far unless I'm mistaken.
This is just my opinion and it's just looking at the PC -VR side of things and not standalone VR. I think people have got too used to playing on anything from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor. I'm usually always asked the question when people have tried my Oculus CV1 VR headset -Why it so blurry? I have now made a habit of showing them the HP Reverb after showing the Oculus CV1 and they tell me how much better it looks.
I think once VR doesn't look like it's a step back from a at-least a 1080p monitor that's when more PC users will buy into PC -VR. Lets see what happens with the HP G2 with it's higher resolution displays. Lets see if it makes a difference to the PC market because the only way to tell if some of this is about visuals.
I do think it's a great idea for Oculus Facebook to also try and keep getting more people into VR with a cheap standalone VR headset and I hope it does well. Nobody knows the resolution of this new standalone headset yet either.




I think in addition to content you need what you mentioned very clear visuals and I also feel a much lighter headset is needed for the masses. Headsets are still very big and bulky for the masses to accept in my opinion. 



Yeah, I see where you're coming from fella. Bulky headsets can put some people off just by looking at the size of the things, but the thing is bulky can sometimes be deceiving. What I mean by that is something can be bulky but still lightweight. When I look at the Pimax for example, I can't help thinking that thing must weight a ton. But funnily enough, I don't hear many people say that about it.

Nunyabinez
Rising Star
I'm fairly confident that  Oculus is done with "Pure PCVR" headsets. Whatever they come out with will be a standalone/PC hybrid.

The real question is how are they going to do this? Are they going to keep having an entry level and a high(er) end? I keep seeing incredible work being done by Facebook Research Labs on eye tracking, foveated rendering and varifocal displays. One of their head research guys says that they are working towards being able to pass a "Visual Turing Test." I can't believe that they would be investing in all this research to simply pump out a "Quest Lite."

I've got a finger on the trigger to upgrade to a G2, but I really want to wait for these 2nd generation technologies. This announcement has made me pause on my purchase, but if they keep their roadmap this secret, my VR budget will be spent before they come out with a product and I won't be buying even if I want to. 

i7 8700, 16GB, RTX 2080 TI, Rift CV1 | i5 4690K, 16GB, GTX 1660 TI, Rift CV1 | Quest | Quest 2

inovator
Consultant


Nunyabinez said:
I'm fairly confident that  Oculus is done with "Pure PCVR" headsets. Whatever they come out with will be a standalone/PC hybrid




I have been saying that as well that any high end will be a hybrid.

Anonymous
Not applicable

kevinw729 said:


RuneSR2 said:
...

I'm sure it won't. To be frank, I have no idea if Oculus is going to focus on high-end PCVR for a long time - it certainly isn't my impression, but seems that Oculus likes to surprise us now and then. Also HP and Valve have set the bar rather high if Oculus wants to deliver a high-end solution priced below the Index.  
.....
Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow!  B)



Ha. yeah - blaming things is tight!
Seriously, I think the progression in these areas have been amazing, and the reason HP and Valve can benefit from a educated market is down to much of what HTC and Oculus (and Sony) achieved first. I will not blame Lenovo - but am looking forward to their new high-end VR system with Varjo (which some still seem to be brushing under the carpet as not relevant).

Its nice to see HP and Valve getting credit for pushing the bar so high - I noticed a trend in some postings to try and dismiss the high-end VR scene, and always trying to shoehorn Rift-S into these discussions. The Rift-S is a great little low-end headset at a price point that was deemed needed. But trying to claim its comparable to the new phase of high-end dev is a little blinkered. 

I agree, Oculus liked their surprises, and hopefully the remaining management still carry over this ethos. It would be nice to see a brand new Rift (CV1) replacement with powerful performance launched next year as some have foretold - but I remember how long it took to see the replacement to the CV1, and we know how that turned out in reality (against the promised speculation). 




There REALLY isn't a great deal of difference between the Rift S and the Valve Index in terms of resolution. You're looking at a 1440p headset compared to a 1600p headset.

The major difference is the refresh rate and controllers, but how many people out there have a PC capable of powering a 1600p headset at 120Hz? Not many.

Which leaves the controllers. For those coming from previously using the Rift there really isn't THAT much difference either because the Touch controllers have had finger tracking for YEARS.

The Rift S is a high-end headset, particularly when you consider that you can supersample just as much as you can with the Rift at a higher resolution thanks to Oculus' decision regarding the refresh rate of the display.

Is it AS high end as the Index or G2? No, of course not. But it's still a high end PC VR headset.

inovator
Consultant

snowdog said:


kevinw729 said:


RuneSR2 said:
...

I'm sure it won't. To be frank, I have no idea if Oculus is going to focus on high-end PCVR for a long time - it certainly isn't my impression, but seems that Oculus likes to surprise us now and then. Also HP and Valve have set the bar rather high if Oculus wants to deliver a high-end solution priced below the Index.  
.....
Let's all blame Nvidia and AMD for being too slow!  B)



Ha. yeah - blaming things is tight!
Seriously, I think the progression in these areas have been amazing, and the reason HP and Valve can benefit from a educated market is down to much of what HTC and Oculus (and Sony) achieved first. I will not blame Lenovo - but am looking forward to their new high-end VR system with Varjo (which some still seem to be brushing under the carpet as not relevant).

Its nice to see HP and Valve getting credit for pushing the bar so high - I noticed a trend in some postings to try and dismiss the high-end VR scene, and always trying to shoehorn Rift-S into these discussions. The Rift-S is a great little low-end headset at a price point that was deemed needed. But trying to claim its comparable to the new phase of high-end dev is a little blinkered. 

I agree, Oculus liked their surprises, and hopefully the remaining management still carry over this ethos. It would be nice to see a brand new Rift (CV1) replacement with powerful performance launched next year as some have foretold - but I remember how long it took to see the replacement to the CV1, and we know how that turned out in reality (against the promised speculation). 




There REALLY isn't a great deal of difference between the Rift S and the Valve Index in terms of resolution. You're looking at a 1440p headset compared to a 1600p headset.

The major difference is the refresh rate and controllers, but how many people out there have a PC capable of powering a 1600p headset at 120Hz? Not many.

Which leaves the controllers. For those coming from previously using the Rift there really isn't THAT much difference either because the Touch controllers have had finger tracking for YEARS.

The Rift S is a high-end headset, particularly when you consider that you can supersample just as much as you can with the Rift at a higher resolution thanks to Oculus' decision regarding the refresh rate of the display.

Is it AS high end as the Index or G2? No, of course not. But it's still a high end PC VR headset.


Good points. Maybe we enthusiasts should say higher end.

Anonymous
Not applicable
Yup. The only mid-range headsets that have been released so far are the WVR headsets, including the Reverb. I put them as mid-range for a few reasons: bad tracking, small sweetspot and lack of finger tracking for the controllers. You COULD call them high-end headsets if you ONLY use them to play sims though, but even then the small sweet spot is still going to be an issue.