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

DaftnDirect
Volunteer Moderator
Volunteer Moderator
It's going to be really interesting to see where Quest fits into all of this.
How many people will see it as an affordable alternative to PCVR? How many will see it as an addition to their PCVR?

We may also be ignoring the elephant in the room.... what if there are only a certain percentage of gamers and techies who are interested in VR at all right now and we're higher to reaching that ceiling than we think?

I remember first getting an internet connection... it seemed to be many years before it became a thing that a lot of other people wanted. VR take-up could just be facing a similar early inertia regardless of price, software and headset capabilities.

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 (19042.964)

dburne
Level 16

RedRizla said:

Not wanting to repeat myself, but why didn't they just make Rift -S like Rift Quest? That way you get audio headphones, ipd adjustment, higher resolutions screens and all for the same price as the Oculus Quest. I remember the guy from Oculus saying it was the halo design of the Rift -S that made it the same price as the Oculus Quest, but I think people were happy with the design of Oculus Quest and CV1.

I don't think they would have needed to even partner with Lenovo if they had done that would they?

Probably because Lenova was behind the design...
Rift CV1| Rift S| Quest| Reverb G2| Index

ShocksVR
Level 9
I think we need to remember that Lenovo is the only manufacturer outside of SONY to have a license to use the PSVR Halo headstrap for their VR headsets.

I am absolutely certain that is the main reason why Oculus teamed up with Lenovo (to gain access to the PSVR Halo; so no this isn't the WMR halo [verified by those who used the Rift S and said it felt similar to PSVR]), and Lenovo would probably need to have their branding on the headset to stay compliant with the licensing agreement. That's probably why Oculus states publically that Lenovo was vital to the design process, as it's probably another licensing lingo thing.

With respect to just the HMD part of Rift-S, I'm confident that was wholly designed by Oculus. IMO it's a modified Oculus GO HMD attached to the PSVR Halo.

i7-7700k, Zotac RTX 3080 AMP Holo (10G), Oculus Quest 2
Previous: Oculus GO, Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale, Oculus Rift S

dburne
Level 16

snowdog said:

It'll be $600, not $450, no matter what was said during that interview. You also have to remember that this interview was translated by Google Translate too.

They need high end PC VR. The Rift S is a high end PC VR headset, not a mid range one. Ticks are always cheaper than Tocks because Tocks always have new tech, and that tech is always found in the following Tick when that new tech has matured and is cheaper  to produce.

As I've said before they're not going to sit on their eye tracking and foveated rendering tech until 2028 so that they can put it into standalone headsets for the first time. The Tock is going to be a high end PC VR headset and it'll be released in 3 years time.

I wonder how many years will pass before folks start to realize - Oculus changed direction on PC-VR.
😉

Rift CV1| Rift S| Quest| Reverb G2| Index

inovator
Level 12

KoBak07 said:


inovator said:

Kobako7 said:
I think just that many of us original Rift users are kind of disappointed with FB seemingly switching from servicing high and low end, to low and low-mid market segments from a hardware perspective. HW is not everything, but I can't think of any other company from other industries that decided to seemingly turn away a market lead on purpose.

The rift s will bring in many more users than they would otherwise in my opinion. I predict their market lead will not be lost but will be increased. What you said may be true of the high end enthusiasts but the mainstream users is a better bet for oculus to please.


I was not speaking of market lead from a qty perspective, much rather than tech advantage. They might end up with a bunch of new users, but I will be curious to see how engaged this segment will be about actually keep buying content. IF we end up with low quality in graphics and immersion I would due to the low minimum hardware requirements, I would argue that these new users will pretty quick to run away.



The graphics and improved ease of set up will keep new users if the content is there.  If the new users runaway vr is in trouble as far as faster advancement. Better hardware won't get more mainstream users to spend for that hardware. Better hardware will only make non mainstream users happy which isn't good enough 

RedRizla
Level 16
@inovator - That's why it would be a good idea to cater for both mid-range and highend user. Like I said in another post those with Geforce 2080Ti, will look for something better then Rift -S imo. 

snowdog
Level 16

Mradr said:


snowdog said:

It'll be $600, not $450, no matter what was said during that interview. You also have to remember that this interview was translated by Google Translate too.

They need high end PC VR. The Rift S is a high end PC VR headset, not a mid range one. Ticks are always cheaper than Tocks because Tocks always have new tech, and that tech is always found in the following Tick when that new tech has matured and is cheaper  to produce.

As I've said before they're not going to sit on their eye tracking and foveated rendering tech until 2028 so that they can put it into standalone headsets for the first time. The Tock is going to be a high end PC VR headset and it'll be released in 3 years time.


They don't need high end PCVR though - they just need to make enough money to pay their workers and their investors. Any thing left over goes to expanding their software line up to draw in more users. Nothing in that plan will help us get a better HMD right now. That's the sad truth in what he was saying - and the reason a lot of us are upset. They didn't devalue or drop PCVR - they will just have more options now outside of PCVR as whole instead. This means smaller advancements in our jumps to keep price low.

At this point - waiting 3 years to find out is just not a option as we talk about last page - anything could happen between then and there and it looks like other VR companies might try and take that crown away if they can.



I've already gone over this but I'll go through it all again. They need high end PC VR (and Tocks) because Tock customers such as our good selves, aka early adopters, are will to pay more to get new tech early. This new tech needs to start at the Tock level where it's more expensive, as this new tech gets cheaper to manufacture it gets seen in the Tick model a few years later at a cheaper price.

Then the cost of manufacturing comes down further and we'll start to see it in the Quest line of products a year or so later before eventually the cost has come down so much that it features in the Go line of products, either at the same time or maybe a year after that.

This is how these things work. Like I've said before, Oculus need high end PC VR headsets so that this technology filters down through to their cheaper line of products. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SIT ON THE TECHNOLOGY USED IN THE HALF DOME PROTOTYPE FOR 9 OR 10 YEARS BECAUSE THEY NEED TO MANUFACTURE THE STUFF TO GET THE COSTS DOWN.

It REALLY isn't rocket surgery tbh, I'm struggling to see how you're not understanding this stuff.
"This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever

ShocksVR
Level 9

RedRizla said:

@inovator - That's why it would be a good idea to cater for both mid-range and highend user. Like I said in another post those with Geforce 2080Ti, will look for something better then Rift -S imo. 


I'm sure they will. The RTX 2080Ti is a $1200+ GPU.  There's probably no reason why they've haven;t already picked up something like a Vive Pro since price doesn't seem to be the limiting factor.
i7-7700k, Zotac RTX 3080 AMP Holo (10G), Oculus Quest 2
Previous: Oculus GO, Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale, Oculus Rift S

Mradr
Level 13

snowdog said:
Then the cost of manufacturing comes down further and we'll start to see it in the Quest line of products a year or so later before eventually the cost has come down so much that it features in the Go line of products, either at the same time or maybe a year after that.


Agree - but there was a few cases so far  that show that isn't true though:
1) Improve lenses came out with GO - not CV refresh
2) Vision tracking was work on for Quest - not in half dome as we saw
3) They rather switch to a single panel instead of using dual panels

My point is that it doesn't have to start from the top to come down. If they set on the research - they can release at any time for any product meaning they don't have to release for the high end for it to come down to the low end - they can release it as needed for any product they wish only being limited by their own limits to keep with in a price point or the hardware they want run it with.

This is both good and bad - but effectively - they could focus on Quest2, GO2 and Rift S2 from this point on - so long as they get more customers than before - it really doesn't matter if they have a high end headset - they can just create the high end headset in the lab and slowly bring out new features of it as they work out test runs in the factories or bring a piece of it to another headset across three different product lines. Want to sell higher end lenses? Ok - put them in the GO until they are cheaper. Higher end screens? Tell the LCD maker you will buy x amount of these screens and next year promise to buy x amount of their newer model next. Eye tracking? Give it to the model that is already using static FOVA so they don't have to change much for getting it to work (Quest and GO) then sell it in your product line later for GO and PC.

dburne
Level 16



RedRizla said:

@inovator - That's why it would be a good idea to cater for both mid-range and highend user. Like I said in another post those with Geforce 2080Ti, will look for something better then Rift -S imo. 


I'm sure they will. The RTX 2080Ti is a $1200+ GPU.  There's probably no reason why they've haven;t already picked up something like a Vive Pro since price doesn't seem to be the limiting factor.

I got an EVGA RTX 2080 Ti FTW3 Ultra in Sept.
Built this new i9 9900k rig in Jan.
All for what I hoped would be the next great Oculus Rift. Only reason I did the above.

Many of my flight sim comrades had already switched to other headsets, I insisted on holding out for Oculus myself as I have been well pleased with my CV1 and had a lot of faith in what they would bring out next.
Oh well...



Rift CV1| Rift S| Quest| Reverb G2| Index