cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

First Images of New Oculus Headset

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
9u6f8za4mnr5.png

NOTE - This is a Twitter supplied source, and it has yet to be confirmed if this is a render from a fan or an actual promotional image, though it seems to be following the lines that have been leaked so far.
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
232 REPLIES 232

Anonymous
Not applicable

Zenbane said:

GO is dead... its dead jim!!! Hes not coming back, but we did pick up his cooler younger brother Quest.

Hmm, but you keep saying "Quest-2-GO" so that means GO has... resurrected? GO can't be both dead and alive at  the same time, bro. GO CV1 is dead, but GO CV2 is alive? You call GO CV2, Quest-2-GO. Other side of the exact same coin.





schrodingers cat Memes  GIFs - Imgflip

Anonymous
Not applicable
So this is one example I see on the daily - or at least ask about... while I think this person might be young... its a good example of customers who got GO thinking it was more like Quest and Rift S... when it was design for another reason. When they make this the next go replacement (upgrade to) its going to really bring up the standers of what people know at least what they're getting vs something that is part of the line up. Killing GO was the right move to stop more of this confusion going forward and make it clear that their line up across the board can use VR for many reasons - a function over price device.

https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/profile/discussions/WesElliot

While this is one example, I know many of my family almost fall for the trap as well because they see the lower price and they don't understand what VR really needs to make it work like at "Mradr's" house. Even my own nephews were hype to see the GO a few months back because they thought it work like the Quest I got them.... but cheaper... its scary how easy it is for a customer to fall into the wrong area.

So while they could've kept selling the GO - I think it would've just been really confusing what apps were going to be supported, what you really need for VR, why is there this lower price headset and these other headsets that cost more.... it would've been over whelming to the average customer that we few forget about in terms of how much VR knowledge we know. 

Dropping the GO when they did - and prep for the next headset while working with your devs to port  their software over to Quest store was the smart move. This is one big reason why I dont see how this Quest is the "upgrade" version for current Quest users. Not even as a side upgrade and clearly design for replacing what GO was offering - a cheap headset that the masses can get their hands on at a price they might be able to afford. That offers the same features as the rest of the line up. While the true "upgrade" for Quest 1 users will be either in 2021 or 2022 along with the Rift S 2. Witch will more likely offer a way bigger jump in the SoC performance and storage options.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

Mradr said:
Killing GO was the right move to stop more of this confusion going forward


You do make a good argument, and I do agree that the whole 3DoF could be confusing for people who experienced VR with 6DoF and didn't realize what they would be getting when they bought GO. They could always just get a refund if they are disappointed of course, but I suppose that's irrelevant.

I agree with your entire post above. The only thing I find odd is that you say you think killing GO was good to help avoid confusion... yet you keep calling the next HMD: Quest-2-GO.
😘

At the end of the day, the fact is - as Carmack said - GO was a good product that helped pave the way for Quest. That's just the history of this tech.

bigmike20vt
Visionary

kevinw729 said:

Interest summation of the situation. I will counter that with this view of the possibilities:

1. Quest-Lite = a $299 platform with a Snapdragon 845 and reduced construction as a replacement to the cheap entry level VR

2. Rift 2 = a $499 platform as a replacement to the Rift-S and competitor to the Reverb G2, using Quest components, but also using Half Dome2 elements

3. Quest 2 = a $499 version of the Quest with enhanced elements, the Half Dome2 optics package, and a enhanced Link cable that can be connected to a console (XboxSX) [built exclusively to compete against the new PSVR2]

Those are the current options for the next 24-months, as I see them.







IF oculus did all 3 of those I would be a happyn chappie indeed (preferably announce them BEFORE I take delivery of my G2)
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

I tend to agree with nalex, I just can't see Oculus maintaining two versions of the Quest at any given time (other than memory options). There will be one standalone and one dedicated PCVR headset at any given time imo, until the point that proper hybrids are a thing, then maybe have a higher end and a mainstream version.

Considering the supply issue that we've been having, which started before, but made much worse by Coronavirus, I just can't see anyone at Oculus thinking that increasing headset models would be a good idea. I can imagine streamlining production being a buzz phrase over there right now.

Luciferous
Consultant
I think the colour scheme seems to fit well with Horizons. Lot of white and pink.

q3o8ydg03hvr.png

nalex66
MVP
MVP
A new article from UploadVR claims that, according to "reliable sources", the new Quest has three discrete settings for IPD adjustment, confirming that the mysterious '2' seen in the most recent leaked image is the IPD setting.

DK2, CV1, Go, Quest, Quest 2, Quest 3.


Try my game: Cyclops Island Demo

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
Interesting - thanks for sharing this news.
Fascinating that the news sites are having a play off regarding which leaks are which.
I really wonder about the OP images - if as I suggested they were created based in the information and possible images the renderer had but changed enough not to be liable for legal action?

Anyway only a few more weeks before the truth is out.
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

Anonymous
Not applicable

Considering the supply issue that we've been having, which started before, but made much worse by Coronavirus, I just can't see anyone at Oculus thinking that increasing headset models would be a good idea. I can imagine streamlining production being a buzz phrase over there right now.


How so? I mean - if you are "short on supply" of a product part - then that causes the whole unit to be delay. Thus, wouldn't a tiny spread help? For example, SoCs are usually made in batches and same with screens. If you get short supply on one of them - you are kind of stuck, yet, if you had two different products you could continue to sell the other until the batches come in for the others as they use different parts. 

Then there is the flip side of things - you still have to have workers building them of course. Yet, that is a simple fix of hiring more workers.

Then there is also the price differences - are they going to just stick with the lower price point then? You can't keep yoyoing the price up and down if you are not going to sell two different products either. IF you do - or think you could - then what about the people that want the lower price unit? Or the people that want the higher price unit when they switch during that cycle? Wouldn't make sense.

Your best bet - is you keep it to base a model - then upgrade that base model instead - this way you reuse the same parts over and over again yet you change out the parts that have higher risk of delay like the SoC and the screens.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Mradr said:


Considering the supply issue that we've been having, which started before, but made much worse by Coronavirus, I just can't see anyone at Oculus thinking that increasing headset models would be a good idea. I can imagine streamlining production being a buzz phrase over there right now.


How so? I mean - if you are "short on supply" of a product part - then that causes the whole unit to be delay. Thus, wouldn't a tiny spread help? For example, SoCs are usually made in batches and same with screens. If you get short supply on one of them - you are kind of stuck, yet, if you had two different products you could continue to sell the other until the batches come in for the others as they use different parts. 

Then there is the flip side of things - you still have to have workers building them of course. Yet, that is a simple fix of hiring more workers.

Then there is also the price differences - are they going to just stick with the lower price point then? You can't keep yoyoing the price up and down if you are not going to sell two different products either. IF you do - or think you could - then what about the people that want the lower price unit? Or the people that want the higher price unit when they switch during that cycle? Wouldn't make sense.

Your best bet - is you keep it to base a model - then upgrade that base model instead - this way you reuse the same parts over and over again yet you change out the parts that have higher risk of delay like the SoC and the screens.


What is SoC you are referring to?