04-12-2019 02:53 PM
04-15-2019 01:42 PM
ShocksOculus said:
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.
04-15-2019 02:00 PM
DaftnDirect said:
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.
04-15-2019 02:06 PM
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
04-15-2019 02:10 PM
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?
04-15-2019 02:11 PM
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.
04-15-2019 02:15 PM
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.
04-15-2019 02:20 PM
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.
04-15-2019 02:24 PM
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.
04-15-2019 02:31 PM
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.
04-15-2019 02:40 PM
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.