cancel
Showing results forย 
Search instead forย 
Did you mean:ย 

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 ๐Ÿ™‚
401 REPLIES 401

RedRizla
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.



Vive Pro isn't Oculus and it's Oculus who said they wanted 1 billion users in VR, or did they mean spread across different headsets when they said that?

snowdog
Level 16


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.



The ways of attracting mainstream gamers (not to be confused with mainstream consumers!) to gaming in VR is twofold:

1) Getting the cost down. Mainstream gamers tend to be less technically adept when it comes to building PCs. They tend to buy them pre built to play the latest GTA, Assassin's Creed etc and MIGHT buy a new GPU so that they can play the latest version of a big name franchise on their aging or low spec machine, assuming that they haven't bought a cheap gaming laptop.

This is basically the average person on Steam. This is why keeping the Rift minimum specs as they are is so important and why an eye tracking and foveated rendering headset at a reasonable price is so important. They will imo buy a headset when it's at the impulse buy price of $300, so they won't be getting one until around 2026 (the CV2 S will release in 2025 and will hopefully get a price cut to that level)

2) They need big name franchises to have VR versions. We're not too far away from seeing this happening, by the time the CV2 S comes out in 2025 we'll start seeing those big name games getting VR versions. Hell, we might even see it happening earlier if we see Microsoft bringing VR to the Xbox before then.



We need to differentiate between mainstream consumers and mainstream gamers because they're two completely different demographics. The former is your average householder who doesn't really play games, they'll want VR for films, social media and sports events etc. The latter is your average gamer who isn't willing to upgrade their PC unless they have to to play the next GTA etc.

For mainstream consumers to adopt VR en masse the way that DVD players etc have done the price of entry needs to come down to less than 100 dollars.
"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

KoBak07
Level 4

inovator said:


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 


If the graphics quality is there... but Gen1 graphics quality already leaves lots to be desired I would argue. People who are enthusiastic about VR put up with it, but the average Joe gets tired of it fast.

I still think that Rift S is pointless product in it's form. To target the masses, with lower fidelity and not needing a PC the Quest was coming out already. The only thing that makes sense to me is them not wanting PCVR to be too far ahead in fidelity and quality, worried that such a setup would alienate their Quest target base. Same reason as when console manufactures are paying off devs to degrade games on PC for graphics and physics so consoles do not look last gen / low end.

kojack
Volunteer Moderator
Volunteer Moderator

CrashFu said:


Although, I think a more fitting metaphor at this point would be that Oculus is Nintendo and Valve is Walmart.   If Walmart announced an official Walmart-branded, Walmart-designed game console tomorrow, and gave no details about it other than a single photo and the promise that it has "a higher resolution than the Nintendo Switch!" or something like that,  would you swear off Nintendo games for life and become a loyal devotee of the Walmart console empire?   "That's apples to oranges, Walmart doesn't make games or game consoles!"  Exactly.  They have no prior history of making game consoles, and they sell other peoples' games (many of them out of bins with big, single-digit price signs overhead)  but are otherwise not part of the game industry.  So why would you trust them with a game console, especially given a suspicious lack of details, unless you were the most die-hard Walmart fan alive?


Umm, no.
Remember that Valve was involved with Oculus for the earlier dev kits. Valve designed all of the tech behind the major Oculus competitor Vive, and Valve wrote all of the software that powers many VR headsets (SteamVR).

So in your analogy it would be like if Walmart consulted with Nintendo when building the Wii (because Walmart had more advanced console research at the time), Walmart designed the Xbox One for Microsoft and they wrote the OS for the PS4 and XBox One. Would you trust Walmart to make a console?

Valve has never directly sold a self branded VR headset. But treating them like a game store that has zero experience at VR is clearly wrong.


Author: Oculus Monitor,  Auto Oculus Touch,  Forum Dark Mode, Phantom Touch Remover,  X-Plane Fixer
Hardware: Threadripper 1950x, MSI Gaming Trio 2080TI, Asrock X399 Taich
Headsets: Wrap 1200VR, DK1, DK2, CV1, Rift-S, GearVR, Go, Quest, Quest 2, Reverb G2

snowdog
Level 16

Mradr said:


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.



The screens, lenses, sound tubes etc that have filtered up are completely different for one important reason. Cost. These are cheap additions to make on their two standalone lines. Eye tracking and foveated rendering are completely different because they're A LOT more expensive to manufacture. Yes, they could have them on the Quest right now if they really wanted to, but it would be pointless doing so because it would add another couple of hundred dollars into the purchase price of the headset.

New and more expensive technology doesn't tend to filter up for this very reason.
"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

KoBak07
Level 4

snowdog said:


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.



This is why Oculus decided to cut the refresh rate from 90Hz to 80Hz. You're not getting lower quality in graphics, you're getting graphics quality just a notch below the Vive Pro with less SDE and less god rays for a fraction of the price and not needing an expensive GPU upgrade to run the thing.

And when the CV2 does get released we'll be looking at a large leap in quality (4K displays, 140 degrees FOV, eye tracking and foveated rendering) for a cheaper price than any competing headset with similar specs. And because Oculus will have delayed the release of it until 2022 we know that it's going to be of better quality than competitors' headsets, the Touch controllers are the prime example of this happening before.


Unfortunately I see getting lower quality graphics. With the new panel we are losing true blacks, bright colors, along with a drop of max refresh rate. We get a small bump in overall res, but doubt that it will be any meaningful increase in fidelity in high res environments. Also, I do not think anybody was begging them for reducing the GPU requirements, rather the wish to release tech that allows more efficient use of already existing resources.

I doubt they would be offering the CV2 vision with the specs you are listing as per interviews FB is convinced that the market disappears at $450 for VR and nobody would be buying.

snowdog
Level 16

KoBak07 said:


snowdog said:


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.



This is why Oculus decided to cut the refresh rate from 90Hz to 80Hz. You're not getting lower quality in graphics, you're getting graphics quality just a notch below the Vive Pro with less SDE and less god rays for a fraction of the price and not needing an expensive GPU upgrade to run the thing.

And when the CV2 does get released we'll be looking at a large leap in quality (4K displays, 140 degrees FOV, eye tracking and foveated rendering) for a cheaper price than any competing headset with similar specs. And because Oculus will have delayed the release of it until 2022 we know that it's going to be of better quality than competitors' headsets, the Touch controllers are the prime example of this happening before.


Unfortunately I see getting lower quality graphics. With the new panel we are losing true blacks, bright colors, along with a drop of max refresh rate. We get a small bump in overall res, but doubt that it will be any meaningful increase in fidelity in high res environments. Also, I do not think anybody was begging them for reducing the GPU requirements, rather the wish to release tech that allows more efficient use of already existing resources.

I doubt they would be offering the CV2 vision with the specs you are listing as per interviews FB is convinced that the market disappears at $450 for VR and nobody would be buying.




Tell that to the guy that played DCS World on a Rift S and almost wet his pants saying 'I can see EVERYTHING!!!'.

And it's interview, singular. And an interview that was provided via Google Translate, as I've already mentioned.

Oculus need the Tock.
"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

Mradr
Level 13

snowdog said:


The screens, lenses, sound tubes etc that have filtered up are completely different for one important reason. Cost. These are cheap additions to make on their two standalone lines. Eye tracking and foveated rendering are completely different because they're A LOT more expensive to manufacture. Yes, they could have them on the Quest right now if they really wanted to, but it would be pointless doing so because it would add another couple of hundred dollars into the purchase price of the headset.

New and more expensive technology doesn't tend to filter up for this very reason.


As of right now - sure - but what about the Quest 2? Quest 2 or Go 2 could easy come out with it as the over next headset will have well understanding of cost and design. The major cost for PCVR to get them is because people will expect higher res screens with them - but Quest and GO don't really have to worry about that and can already are doing the opposite and excepting static FOVA to do some of the work. Over all - it would be cheaper to add it to GO2 or Quest2 first with software that can already support it over having to start getting PCVR devs to wrap their heads around using it.

But you are not fighting cost - you are fighting what software is already using it.

KoBak07
Level 4

snowdog said:


KoBak07 said:


snowdog said:


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.



This is why Oculus decided to cut the refresh rate from 90Hz to 80Hz. You're not getting lower quality in graphics, you're getting graphics quality just a notch below the Vive Pro with less SDE and less god rays for a fraction of the price and not needing an expensive GPU upgrade to run the thing.

And when the CV2 does get released we'll be looking at a large leap in quality (4K displays, 140 degrees FOV, eye tracking and foveated rendering) for a cheaper price than any competing headset with similar specs. And because Oculus will have delayed the release of it until 2022 we know that it's going to be of better quality than competitors' headsets, the Touch controllers are the prime example of this happening before.


Unfortunately I see getting lower quality graphics. With the new panel we are losing true blacks, bright colors, along with a drop of max refresh rate. We get a small bump in overall res, but doubt that it will be any meaningful increase in fidelity in high res environments. Also, I do not think anybody was begging them for reducing the GPU requirements, rather the wish to release tech that allows more efficient use of already existing resources.

I doubt they would be offering the CV2 vision with the specs you are listing as per interviews FB is convinced that the market disappears at $450 for VR and nobody would be buying.




Tell that to the guy that played DCS World on a Rift S and almost wet his pants saying 'I can see EVERYTHING!!!'.

And it's interview, singular. And an interview that was provided via Google Translate, as I've already mentioned.

Oculus need the Tock.


For now I take the world of the DCS World Sr Producer with a grain of salt as in the forum he clearly stated that he already said as much as he could since he is under an NDA with FB. I actually expect more from the upcoming performance update, which should, provided they deliver on their stated goal, make the current gen 1 headset just underutilize GPUs out there. Well not the 1060, but that card is so old by GPU standards.

snowdog
Level 16

Mradr said:


snowdog said:


The screens, lenses, sound tubes etc that have filtered up are completely different for one important reason. Cost. These are cheap additions to make on their two standalone lines. Eye tracking and foveated rendering are completely different because they're A LOT more expensive to manufacture. Yes, they could have them on the Quest right now if they really wanted to, but it would be pointless doing so because it would add another couple of hundred dollars into the purchase price of the headset.

New and more expensive technology doesn't tend to filter up for this very reason.


As of right now - sure - but what about the Quest 2? Quest 2 or Go 2 could easy come out with it as the over next headset will have well understanding of cost and design. The major cost for PCVR to get them is because people will expect higher res screens with them - but Quest and GO don't really have to worry about that and can already are doing the opposite and excepting static FOVA to do some of the work. Over all - it would be cheaper to add it to GO2 or Quest2 first with software that can already support it over having to start getting PCVR devs to wrap their heads around using it.

But you are not fighting cost - you are fighting what software is already using it.



I've already explained this. It's going to be more expensive for it to appear on standalone headsets first and they need to keep the price of those headsets as low as they can so that people will buy them.

People that will buy the Tock won't mind spending an extra 200 dollars on new technology. The Tock is aimed at the early adopter enthusiast demographic. We won't see that appearing in those standalone headsets until the manufacturing cost has come RIGHT down. The Tick is aimed at people that aren't willing to pay as much for a VR experience and the standalone are aimed at people that are willing to pay even LESS to get into VR.
"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