cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath

bigmike20vt
Level 14
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=3&hl=de&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=...

Pretty bleak reading imo excuse long link Google shortener not working on it
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂
401 REPLIES 401

inovator
Level 12


Both sides are right.

Definitely need to bring the average joe into VR, so agree there.

however we already have a plethora of other companies doing that, we don’t need ‘everybody’ doing that.

You can drown in the number of affordable mediocre headsets on the market.

Oculus were supposed to be the pioneers. A company that gave the others something to aspire to. 

The quest is fantastic I am sure but the Rift S is just competent.

 I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?

Losing Oculus as that champion is a blow to VRs future.

My hope is valve will now fill those shoes. The last thing we need is them to start churning out more mediocrity.









You and some others will never get it. Mradr says what I have been saying for a long time but says it better. You say your disappointed because oculus was,supposed to be the pioneer. Someone had to be the adult in the room to get things going. I say, thanks oculus. What your doing is our best hope for the future of VR in order for it to mature and go maistream wise. That will equal greater content and the hardware upgrading for the masses. Palmer said you can give a high end VR headset for free to everyone in the world and VR wouldn't take off any faster. He is so right. It is more important  for vr headsets to get much smaller and lighter as well tech wise than to do other things. The quest is going to be fantastic and sell well but if it were let's say a third the size and weight it would sell a hell of a lot better. That will happen in the future but oculus is doing what it will take, so there is a future.

ShineHunter
Level 4
Wanted and been waiting for the Rift 2 (high end VR headset). Got a Rift S and exploded with disappointment. Everyone said you just need to wait a year for Rift 2. Now no high end VR headset will be coming. Moving teams for high end VR headset more likely happening. Feels dirty and ashamed. Takes a shower and it doesn't wash off. 

pyroth309
Level 14

inovator said:

You and some others will never get it. Mradr says what I have been saying for a long time but says it better. You say your disappointed because oculus was,supposed to be the pioneer. Someone had to be the adult in the room to get things going. I say, thanks oculus. What your doing is our best hope for the future of VR in order for it to mature and go maistream wise. That will equal greater content and the hardware upgrading for the masses. Palmer said you can give a high end VR headset for free to everyone in the world and VR wouldn't take off any faster. He is so right. It is more important  for vr headsets to get much smaller and lighter as well tech wise than to do other things. The quest is going to be fantastic and sell well but if it were let's say a third the size and weight it would sell a hell of a lot better. That will happen in the future but oculus is doing what it will take, so there is a future.


I don't think you fully understand what Mradr is saying. He's arguing for a higher end Rift and to move the mainstream aspirations to mobile. Personally that's what I thought Oculus was going to do and leave the Rift as the showcase platform but I'm not bitter about the direction just disappointed. Someone else will pick up the slack. 
Also I think you have Palmer's comment misconstrued, he was saying if you gave everybody a rift cv1 it still wouldn't be Mass market because the tech wasnt good enough yet. The retention was really low after like a month people quit using it despite having the machine to run it already. IE he was arguing for advancements in Tech. 

DaftnDirect
Volunteer Moderator
Volunteer Moderator




Surely there's room for flexibility and changes of direction that a company takes, given that so much must have been learnt from the last 3 years of manufacturing and selling consumer hardware and funding software?

There will always be high end, if not from Oculus, then from somebody else, but if Oculus doesn't produce a mainstream headset with sufficient quality and capability that prospective mainstream will want it... then will somebody else? I don't see that happening at the moment, and if nobody else does... what would that spell for VR?

Isn't it possible that emergent technology like VR needs to begin high-end for it to make sense to early adaptors, but doesn't have to stay that way? indeed mustn't stay that way in order to survive and become sustainable?

Personally I'm not comfortable with views that equipment from a particular company should be high-end for fear of alienating sections of their costumers. Are existing users really that rigid? and if so, fine, there will be new users joining us who've been waiting for a more accessible yet capable PC headset, or who would otherwise have just waited even longer to get into VR if PC requirements continued to rise.... and I won't be looking down on these users either.

Changes of direction seem to me to be what successful companies do.... and consumer VR needs at least one successful company.


In Which cases the naysayers about oculus stores were correct then .... Don't buy apps from oculus or when they get behind you will be left faffing about with 3rd party hacks. No one (afaik) is complaining about the existence of rift s or catering for the main stream  but a company the size of Facebook must surely be capable of supporting a range of products (even if licenced out).! 
Lenovo make the rift s. I am sure they would happily make a rift X too. And I am not talking about a £1300 device either ...... I don't think a £700 hmd with adjustable IPD and improved fov is outrageous. And besides you are being a bit selfish imo. Oculus themselves are admitting people at the extremes of ipd are no longer supported by oculus. Think about that..... Oculus sold software to preoole and are now saying sorry we no longer supply a device you can use comfortably....... Sorry about that!

You've lost me a bit with the store and getting behind... as far as I can tell, the Rift-S is intended for Oculus to move ahead.... much more so than with a higher priced HMD, and not just that, but in selling more HMDs, they will instil more confidence in developers to produce more software, not just for the Oculus store but for the Steam Store, in either case, additional faffing isn't what's going to happen. It's an interesting idea that allowing a company to do this as being selfish. I would argue that that point of view is the opposite.

We can all argue over what headset could be produced, at what price and with what features... but if you're saying that nobody's complaining about the Rift-S itself, then ok, even though I'm not convinced ok, we can park that.

That just leaves what high-end headset could be produced. We seem to be in agreement that high-high-end (let's agree that's £1300 isn't the right thing for Oculus but medium-high-end is ok (£700). Fine, I'll go with that, but I'm not going to get on a high-horse and say Oculus are abandoning me because they aren't doing that. That would be selfish. (and I'm not accusing you of that bigmike but it's definitely a sentiment that's being expressed).

@kojack , I understand your analogy with the digital cameras. I waited many years, avoiding early digitals until I felt they were good enough to replace 35mm. Eventually I went with a 20D cos at £1200 (I think) it was just about affordable but pretty much equivalent in quality to the 35mm I had.

But there are some fundamental differences with digital cameras. There's no dependence on an ecosystem, in the way that VR has a dependence on software sales. As far as I know the  likes of Canon, Nikon and Sony profited on all cameras sold regardless of specification. I have a feeling Oculus loss-lead or at least sell at cost in order to build base users. I have a feeling the same is true for the software they fund also.

I just think it's easy for everyone to pick and choose price points and specifications that we think should be met but we're not the ones doing it for real.

Intel 5820K OC@4Ghz, Titan X (Maxwell), 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v20H2 (19042.804)

Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v2004 (19042.662)

CrashFu
Level 12



Definitely need to bring the average joe into VR, so agree there.

however we already have a plethora of other companies doing that, we don’t need ‘everybody’ doing that.

You can drown in the number of affordable mediocre headsets on the market.



Unless you're referring to those lame phone-insert VR toys, I'm not sure who this "plethora" of other companies is.

Right now, the only companies I see making decent entry-level devices are Oculus and Sony,  and Oculus are the only ones making one for PC.

Every other company that has dipped its toes into VR products (again, excluding those silly phone-insert toys) has focused exclusively on making expensive, high-end models.  (Or in the case of the first Vive, a needlessly expensive parallel to CV1.)

 I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?
I think that you and others are really underestimating just how much of an improvement the Rift-S' graphics are, over CV1.  On paper, it may only sound like a few hundred more points of resolution each way, but it also has significantly better lenses and 50% more subpixel density (which means the effective resolution, the overall clarity of the image, is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than CV1)

Perhaps you missed the article by a certain flight-sim dev who was talking about how Rift-S's graphics are so sharp, he could easily read every instrument panel in his sim cockpit?   That's a big step up from CV1, where you can't even read most menus in Subnautica.
It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.

bigmike20vt
Level 14






Surely there's room for flexibility and changes of direction that a company takes, given that so much must have been learnt from the last 3 years of manufacturing and selling consumer hardware and funding software?

There will always be high end, if not from Oculus, then from somebody else, but if Oculus doesn't produce a mainstream headset with sufficient quality and capability that prospective mainstream will want it... then will somebody else? I don't see that happening at the moment, and if nobody else does... what would that spell for VR?

Isn't it possible that emergent technology like VR needs to begin high-end for it to make sense to early adaptors, but doesn't have to stay that way? indeed mustn't stay that way in order to survive and become sustainable?

Personally I'm not comfortable with views that equipment from a particular company should be high-end for fear of alienating sections of their costumers. Are existing users really that rigid? and if so, fine, there will be new users joining us who've been waiting for a more accessible yet capable PC headset, or who would otherwise have just waited even longer to get into VR if PC requirements continued to rise.... and I won't be looking down on these users either.

Changes of direction seem to me to be what successful companies do.... and consumer VR needs at least one successful company.


In Which cases the naysayers about oculus stores were correct then .... Don't buy apps from oculus or when they get behind you will be left faffing about with 3rd party hacks. No one (afaik) is complaining about the existence of rift s or catering for the main stream  but a company the size of Facebook must surely be capable of supporting a range of products (even if licenced out).! 
Lenovo make the rift s. I am sure they would happily make a rift X too. And I am not talking about a £1300 device either ...... I don't think a £700 hmd with adjustable IPD and improved fov is outrageous. And besides you are being a bit selfish imo. Oculus themselves are admitting people at the extremes of ipd are no longer supported by oculus. Think about that..... Oculus sold software to preoole and are now saying sorry we no longer supply a device you can use comfortably....... Sorry about that!

You've lost me a bit with the store and getting behind... as far as I can tell, the Rift-S is intended for Oculus to move ahead.... much more so than with a higher priced HMD, and not just that, but in selling more HMDs, they will instil more confidence in developers to produce more software, not just for the Oculus store but for the Steam Store, in either case, additional faffing isn't what's going to happen. It's an interesting idea that allowing a company to do this as being selfish. I would argue that that point of view is the opposite.

We can all argue over what headset could be produced, at what price and with what features... but if you're saying that nobody's complaining about the Rift-S itself, then ok, even though I'm not convinced ok, we can park that.

That just leaves what high-end headset could be produced. We seem to be in agreement that high-high-end (let's agree that's £1300 isn't the right thing for Oculus but medium-high-end is ok (£700). Fine, I'll go with that, but I'm not going to get on a high-horse and say Oculus are abandoning me because they aren't doing that. That would be selfish. (and I'm not accusing you of that bigmike but it's definitely a sentiment that's being expressed).

@kojack , I understand your analogy with the digital cameras. I waited many years, avoiding early digitals until I felt they were good enough to replace 35mm. Eventually I went with a 20D cos at £1200 (I think) it was just about affordable but pretty much equivalent in quality to the 35mm I had.

But there are some fundamental differences with digital cameras. There's no dependence on an ecosystem, in the way that VR has a dependence on software sales. As far as I know the  likes of Canon, Nikon and Sony profited on all cameras sold regardless of specification. I have a feeling Oculus loss-lead or at least sell at cost in order to build base users. I have a feeling the same is true for the software they fund also.

I just think it's easy for everyone to pick and choose price points and specifications that we think should be met but we're not the ones doing it for real.


Perhaps I didn't express myself properly. My issue is I am worried the rift s physically is not going to work for me. I have my IPD set to max on my CV1 ... And if I am honest I would expand it a bit more if I could. 
So (perhaps selfish was the wrong word) but once my rift dies (right headphone is already glued together and am on my 2nd facial insert already) I will end up with a bunch of software on a store  with potentially  NO headset officially supported for me to use.
Anyone saying "stop complaining rift s works for most people " is missing a big problem imo.
This is exactly why many of my purchases were made on steam. Instill have probably £500 with of apps on there tho.
A more quest like design would definitely have been more usable and would have locked of fewer people imo
Sorry if I am getting a bit ranty but I am just getting a bit tired of people essentially accusing people like me of being moaners just because they have an average ipd that oculus choose to support and screw those who are SOOL.
Some have.said ipd of 70 works however as far as I know this has been 15 min sessions. Oculus themselves admit they no longer supoort ipds as high as CV1 and iirc the max my CV1 goes to is 69 or 70 and I am hitting that now
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

DaftnDirect
Volunteer Moderator
Volunteer Moderator
OK bigmike, I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not totally sure if my IPD is within the Rift-S limits being 69, it's within the adjustment limits but outside the recommended limits as far as I can make out. So maybe it'll be ok, maybe not.

I think I'm less pessimistic though in that I believe there will always be a choice of headset that best suits my needs and I'm also optimistic about OpenXR removing cross platform tie-ins.

Maybe I'm just a glass half full bloke but it seems to me that things generally turn out better than most people say... when most people say it'll turn out bad.

(Neville Chamberlain probably felt the same)

Intel 5820K OC@4Ghz, Titan X (Maxwell), 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v20H2 (19042.804)

Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v2004 (19042.662)

RedRizla
Level 16
I think this is all going to come down to the price of the Valve index and it's specs. I also blame Nvida for pricing a Geforce 2080 Ti at £1000 plus. It's a shame RTX tech has come along when all we need is a cheaper Graphics card capable of higher resolutions.

I just wish Nvida would bring out a Graphics card that has the power of a Geforce 2080 Ti without RTX for those who aren't bothered about it.


LuluViBritannia
Level 9
Ouch. That's literally the last thing I wanted to hear from Oculus (well, except for "we wont be making a Rift 2 at all").
What now?
- New Mixed Reality headsets aren't an option since they don't even bother upgrading their tracking system. I mean, it's just the major flaw of these headsets, why willingly keeping it as it is?
- HTC has never really been an option because of their prices. 
- Valve... I don't get why so many people overhype their future headset when we know strictly nothing about it for now.
- Pimax is a joke.

Jeez, I really hate the direction the PCVR market has taken. So many actors from the computing industry, and none of them are able to make something as good as Oculus, which was a f*cking nobody in the industry before the Rift? Come on!
Now my last hope is the Quest getting wireless connexion to computers. ALVR, I believe in you! It has to work, and it has to work well!
Hyped for the Quest 2!


My hopes for VR next gen:
- Full Body Tracking. Come on, Oculus!
- Eye tracking with foveated rendering. Must reduce the power needs!
- More big-scale games. I need a true VRMMORPG!
- Bigger community.

"If you don't mind, do you want me to take you there? Where dreams come true."

pyroth309
Level 14

RedRizla said:

I think this is all going to come down to the price of the Valve index and it's specs. I also blame Nvida for pricing a Geforce 2080 Ti at £1000 plus. It's a shame RTX tech has come along when all we need is a cheaper Graphics card capable of higher resolutions.

I just wish Nvida would bring out a Graphics card that has the power of a Geforce 2080 Ti without RTX for those who aren't bothered about it.




Yep that's pretty much been my theme regarding Nvidia dating back to the Radeon 9800 pro days when ATI actually had the best GPU. In this day and age, any publically traded company that's all alone at the top is going to price gouge mercilessly. It's just the nature of shareholders wanting max profits and CEOs doing all they can to deliver it. Some private companies do the same though. Nvidia needs competition and I really hope Intel can put some screws to them and bring the prices back down.