cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Will We See a CV2

TC1999
Adventurer

So after watching OC4 I’m left with a very worrying
thought “Is facebook more interested in creating a hardware that supports their
social media structure then continuing to push the boundaries of high end pc
based VR”



When facebook brought Oculus this was a fear that many expressed
and now I’m wondering if this is now the case.



I love my rift having brought it a month after launch and
with touch it’s given me lots of enjoyment. When I first saw Palmer Lucky talk
about VR and the kickstarter campaign it was inspiring, especially for a long-term
gamer like me.



When facebook brought Oculus, Touch and the current Rift
where already well under development with the principals for both units in
place.  



So why am I worried that we will not see a CV2.



OC4 starts with Zuckerberg saying he wants 1 billion in
VR. Well that’s never going to happen from high end pc based VR. This only
leaves low end low friction based VR. With the announcement of Oculus Go this
fits that perfectly. Essentially a personal VR media viewer that will work well
for all types of media from watching films, youtube, internet browsing and
social media viewing.



Don’t get me wrong I love the idea of Go and have been
waiting for standalone VR devise that is cheap and easy to use to watch films
and do exactly what this will do, and I will buy one. Oculus Go is great
to achieve this and to spread the idea of VR as well as Oculus brand awareness.



However does this new venture depart the focus aware from
leading edge VR for enthusiastic PC gamers?



Zuckerberg has expressed disappointment that VR adoption has
not grown as quick as they would have liked and I wonder if this is a small
insight to what they really now want to do.



Yes VR adoption has not grown as fast as they would have
liked but hang on a second what kind of adoption is truly possible for current
VR.



Gaming right now is the natural fit for VR but VR is not a
natural fit for gamers on a large scale. My great nephew is 13 and he plays
games all day long if he could, either on his phone or on his xbox. For him
gaming is either quick and easy or a way to talk to his friends online. He is
not interested in great graphics, story lines or immersive gameplay, he wants
awards, quick arena matches, collecting stuff and so on. He has GTA 5 and has
never done a mission for him it’s about his friends meeting up and playing the
game the way they want to. I asked him “is this how all your friends play games”
and he said “yes”.



He has tried my rift but gets bored very quickly one because
he’s not interested in playing a game for the game, his friends are not in it
and the learning curve is more than he is prepared to put in to adapt to it. Maybe he is a lazy 13 year old, but aren’t most 13 year olds and this is the age
group the current gaming industry is focused on.



So who is VR right now for, well I would say the older gamer
who one has the money to spend, enjoys solo driven game or has a strong narrative,
into sims and is willing to take the time to adapt to VR, that is not a large
game base for mass VR adoption. As Palmer Lucky has said VR is for a subset of
a subset of a subset.



So with this knowledge and sales feedback If I was the owner
of a mass media platform and want to promote that platform high end VR would
not be the way to go, low end low friction mass adoption would be my choice. Leading back to sadly again no CV2.



What else points to facebook moving away from high cost
leading edge VR, what Carmack said in his talks and Q&A.



Firstly he said in his talk that almost made me shout was “if
Go tanks then Oculus will focus back to predominantly high end PC VR” WHAT are
you saying that Oculus focus is no longer on advancing PC VR. If that is true
than it is very sad news for all VR enthusiasts who see Oculus as the leading
light in VR. Also in a Q&A he talked about they have lenses that can
achieve 140 degree view but are not using them.



In OC4 there was very little talk about continue funding for
VR titles in fact no talk about funding. And there was no really big titles
being showed for next year. So we have Marvel Powers United and possible
Respawn doing something but we have no news on that. Not Very Encouraging.



Santa Cruz looks good but it’s not high end VR. I want
high end VR, where is my leading edge in visual fidelity and FOV VR, Oculus?.



NOT COMING GUYS NOT COMING.



Price drop to £399 had to be done because very soon Vive and
Rift will have inferior speks to upcoming HMD’s.



Samsung Odyssey is coming and yes the tracking is not going
to be perfect but it will have better ergonomics and visual fidelity. When
anybody tries my rift the first things they say is “it looks fuzzy, I don’t like
the binocular look and it feels uncomfortable on my face”, don’t get me wrong
they are also very impressed but it’s not enough.



So please oculus move towards the halo fit and get rid of
the baseball camp fit. Bump up the screen and lenses.



This is what Samsung have done, don’t get left behind.  



So I hope the £399 is to clear stocks so that maybe just
maybe a bumped up rift is coming.



Rift will even be lesser in visual fidelity then the $199 GO
that’s mad and the media will have a field day with it.



The GO will have higher visuals and better lenses then the
Rift, even Carmack said that the new LCD screens has more net gains now then
OLED.



I wonder if these screens are the same as the ones Pimax are
going to use?



Lastly the coming update for Home with Dash looks great and
really looking forward to it. Please oculus let us know you are still committed
to high end PC driven VR because this update is maybe a prelude benefit for GO and
Santa Cruz.



I would have like to have seen some news about what Oculus is
working on for higher FOV, better lenses, better fidelity, and better
ergonomics. Even if this was not happening strait away and was coming down the
pipe as Oculus did in OC3 last year with Santa Cruz, this would have created a
buzz for VR on PC.



The silence is deafening

108 REPLIES 108

Anonymous
Not applicable

Protocol7 said:

CV2 might have inside out tracking if the Santa Cruz progress is anything to go by



Might do. But we might not see this happening due to the resolution and FOV increasing. Personally I don't want to see VR becoming wireless because when something becomes wireless you have batteries, and batteries run out of juice, breaking immersion.

RonsonPL
Heroic Explorer
You are new to the forum so I get it. But truth is I just wasted time on Zenbane and sometimes on someone from his fangroup. Besides that, I don't have anyone else on my "ignore list".
To make up for those 2 lines of offtopic:
https://www.roadtovr.com/hands-on-oculus-santa-cruz-ii-prototype-controllers-2017-oculus-connect-4/

The resolution was a big step up from the Rift. The pixel fill factor also seemed quite good, doing a lot to reduce the screen door effect.
https://www.roadtovr.com/hands-on-oculus-santa-cruz-ii-prototype-controllers-2017-oculus-connect-4/

That alone. It's what's required to add substantially bigger FOV for the CV1 while not making SDE/pixel fillrate worse.
That's a thing that will be sold very soon. And we can't think of CV2 before 2019 (or at least 2018, but I'd rather not be as optimistic, especially knowing the release history of Oculus previous launches).
This is very important reason why it is obvious that Facebook doesn't care about PC VR and that impacts (already) and will impact hugely CV2. Not only release date, but also what it is.
I don't think there's a real danger of not seeing CV2 at all, but unfortunately it might affect what CV2 is, to a point where it is no longer CV2 people were waiting for, but rather something way inferior.

Meanwhile it will have all the stuff valuable for other people:

It can can have hugely improved weight.
It can be wireless.
It can have tracking improving the safety of use, cause now people will be able see the outlines of their room and objects inside. It can have foveated rendering (definitely not 100% properly working, but some form of it). It might have hand tracking, although not as precise and low latency as some grops of people would consider minimum (for some tasks, like profesional use, new ways of operating design software etc.).
It can have way better software offer at launch than CV1 had.
It might get some first serious HQ games of bigger scale and budget, if it is released alongside new generation of consoles, which might get free from PS Eye/Move tracking method. PSVR2 and XboxVR might be having big impact on what's possible beyond mini-games and such. Higher performance might allow to create games possible for PC VR in 2015, but not possible for console VR until 2019/2020.
In terms of social stuff, Facebook might do a revolution, get HQ software for meetings never possible before. New kind of media being shared.
It might be super successful because of movies and videos (VR movie industry advances very fast, although still only in the high cost zone).

And if it won't give what core gamers want (notice how I didn't use "enthusiasts"), then it won't be a CV2 from a gamer's perspective. And if people searching for an answer for the topic question, can prepare themselves for such scenario instead of being hugely disappointed, then my time spent talking about it, was not wasted at all. 

When I say CV2 might not be what core gamers want, I can even see a scenario where a lot of core gamers actually bought the CV2 and didn't regret the purchase. VR has so much potential in gaming, it can be worth using even in a flawed version, just as it is worth using now for cockpit+helmet games.  The problem is that HQ PC VR has a few orders of magnitude bigger potential compared to what so many people think it has. 

Personally I think the most probable scenario is where Oculus never delivers on a promise of getting best available hardware parts for a <500$ HMD. I think it will bring many things to a higher level which will help PCVR in general (remains unknown to what degree), but I hope some of the promising prototypes can open door to interesting opportunities.
VR is getting treated more and more seriously. Business and arcade VR might open the door. If any technology of next-gen displays can start being produced and bigger amounts and reasonable cost, it can happen that some company will give us something like StarVR. A funny looking HMD no casual would be brave enough to wear (in a fear of being laughed at). A HMD with huge FOV. A HMD with less game design limits coming  from display itself. We see a lot of those now. But up until now there was a common flaw among them: tracking. If Valve actually moves into licensing and every chineese company can use Vive's tracking, then it might be it. If such a thing becomes successful, suddenly Oculus might realize it's a good idea to focus on this seriously, and everything will go great from then on. Can it happen? Sure it can.
Hopefully this last part confuses some people who'd like to see me as Oculus hater. 
Not an Oculus hater, but not a fan anymore. Still lots of respect for the team-Carmack, Abrash. Oculus is driven by big corporation principles now. That brings painful effects already, more to come in the future. This is not the Oculus I once cheered for.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

RonsonPL said:
 But truth is I just wasted time on Zenbane and sometimes on someone from his fangroup. 



nah, you are just another one of those posters who reads everything I say and then publicly types sentences denying that fact. You aren't the first person to try it, and it don't work
 😉 



RonsonPL said:
This is very important reason why it is obvious that Facebook doesn't care about PC VR




It's false to claim that Facebook doesn't care about PCVR; afterall... Facebook Spaces launched to PC VR exclusively, and Mark personally broadcasts live from it. But that is a fact known to people who actually own a Rift. As opposed to someone who just spends all their time reading stuff on the internet and then trying to pass that off as first-hand knowledge.

Hopefully this last part confuses some people who'd like to see me as Oculus hater. 


You'd have to actually own a Rift to attribute feelings towards it, Oculus, or Facebook's role in VR. I think most people simply understand you as someone who doesn't actually own a high-end VR headset but likes having big opinions about it anyway.

Anonymous
Not applicable
The CV2 is unlikely to be wireless for the reasons I've given above.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

Atmos73 said:

Most people don’t own football teams or go to watch them live but can still have valid feelings/ opinions on the subject.




Having an opinion is one thing, having a valid opinion is something else entirely. When it comes to sports, unless someone has actually played that sport then their opinion doesn't mean much. Unless they are talking pure statistics and math. However, when people like you and Ronson try to have an opinion about something you know little or nothing about, then it shows painfully.

Ronson is arguing that Facebook doesn't care about PCVR even though the owner of Facebook broadcasts from Facebook Spaces almost weekly, and FB Spaces is a PCVR exclusively currently. His argument is about as valid as yours when: you said the Remote is not a Controller; you said Robinsons the Journey was an Oculus Exclusive even though it was a PlayStation Exclusive; you said Oculus/Facebook have a bad business model yet HTC sold out to Google while Oculus won 2 VR Awards and H TC won none.



Atmos73 said:
You Zenbane don’t own HTC or Vive but have opinions on them regardless.



I own a competing product, Ronson doesn't own anything at all.



Atmos73 said:
There’s nothing stopping Oculus releasing an upgraded CV1 with better optics and Resolution 



And there' snothing stopping you from upgrading your thought process to understand how business and industry work, you could have better optics for more insights in to how Facebook can multitask PCVR advancements while also working on less expensive headsets for the non-hardcore VR enthusiasts of the world. But you choose to close yourself off to common sense.



Atmos73 said:
Standalone gets priority, PC VR is now secondary.



My Oculus Rift library is consistently filled with fantastic VR experiences, right up to this weekend. There is nothing secondary, you just don't understand the concept of "parallel." You don't get how 2 things can happen at once. You don't understand that both "standalone" and "PCVR" can have priority at the same time. Much like you don't understand how the Oculus Remote can be a Game Controller at the same time.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Atmos73 said:

Most people don’t own football teams or go to watch them live but can still have valid feelings/ opinions on the subject. You Zenbane don’t own HTC or Vive but have opinions on them regardless.

There’s nothing stopping Oculus releasing an upgraded CV1 with better optics and Resolution but they choose to release a £200 GearVR replacement instead which tells you all you need to know. Standalone gets priority, PC VR is now secondary.



Good sense would stop Oculus releasing an upgraded CV1, the same as good sense will stop HTC releasing a Vive 1.5. We'll end up with the mess that consoles have been in this generation with the PS4 Pro instead of the PS5 and the Xbox One X instead of the Xbox Two, and yet another generation that's lasting TOO LONG. For games to advance developers need more power to play with, last generation was something daft like 8 years long with the PS3 and 360 and games became stagnant FOR YEARS because of it. 5-6 years is the right sort of length for a console generation and 3-5 years is the right sort of length for VR generation.

Although to be fair to VR there isn't anywhere near the headache that developers have had since consoles were released, with the PC the architecture pretty much remains the same so it's a piece of piss to develop, compile and run a game for the CV1 and what will be the CV2. Consoles appear to be heading in that direction too thankfully, took the fuckers long enough to realise that they were making developer's lives a major pain in the arse though.

And as @Zenbane has said, Oculus are quite capable of running standalone VR and high-end PCVR in tandem.

kzintzi
Trustee

snowdog said:


Atmos73 said:


Zenbane said:


Atmos73 said:

Ok, get ready for this guys and remember where you heard it first.

The Oculus Remote is a Game Controller!



When you figure out that a Game Controller is a "type", then you will have taken the first step in many that are required to make technology predictions.


Zenbane you don’t know the difference between an Oculus HMD and a Samsung HMD after claiming GearVR sales are Oculus sales.




Not this old chestnut YET AGAIN. Oculus would have had a licence fee paid to them with every GearVR headset sale otherwise you wouldn't have the Oculus name on the thing.


agree - same f#king argument looking for the same result.. piss off please
Though you are more than slightly incoherent, I agree with you Madam,
a plum is a terrible thing to do to a nostril.

RonsonPL
Heroic Explorer
snowdog

Sorry for not getting the joke.
About the Touch. Something tells me it could've been released much, much earlier if pre FB approach was retaiined.
About Rift being the best. It's kind of like there's no one actually in this market so being best in this circumstances doesn't say much. You can clearly see how "serious" is Valve and HTC about it (well, HTC might be as serious as it wants, but the fact is, they are in a difficult financial situation at the moment).
And we can argue if releasing the Touch with like a year of delay was any less harmful than releasing Vive in it's flawed form.

snowdog said:

The end-game of Oculus is to get high-end VR headset costs down so that your average household will have one in their homes. 


Well, that's assuming there even is any high-end VR headset. It's not fair to call CV1 a high-end VR just because there isn't anything better (overall).
And especially not if lower cost PSVR isn't inarguably worse. An there are people out there who actually think PSVR is a better VR than CV1 all things considered.

"In 5 to 10 years". Yeah. You see, it's alway "in 5 to 10 years". And it's not exactly thanx to Oculus. While I respect Palmer and value what he did to help VR, it's also obvious that if not him, then other people would do the same not that much later, if at all. Tech enthusiasts were out there since a long time. Sterescopic 3D lovers were there for a long time. Awesome members of Stereovision.net were prepared to go for any cost necessary (in terms of money and effort) just to make small steps forward.
Even if Palmer didn't exist, we'd still have 1440p mobile displays now. We'd still have low persistence monitors right now. We'd still have advancements in sensors and cameras coming from mobile market. We'd still have people who'd use LCDs to create stereoscopic 3D. Carmack admitted Valve worked on VR before Palmer started. Carmack would still experiment with it at some point. Abrash would still talk about VR and some people would hear what he says.
People hugely exaggerate the importance of Oculus. Some say "we wouldn't have VR now if not for Oculus". I disagree.

About the reasons Zuckenberg bought Oculus. I think he payed almost 3B for any or all of theese reasons:
- to make a ton of money
- to prevent competitors from getting into social VR before FB does
- to strenghen Facebook's position in the future, and social VR is a long-term fuel source for innovation and getting new attractive things to users in order to keep them with Facebook
- a huge opportunity in data collecting. Eye tracking. Sound. Moves. And even eye movement. This is worth a ton of money. 

and not really for any of those:
- cause he wants VR to advance as fast as possible
- cause he wants high quality VR to be popular
- cause he cares about gaming
- cause he wanted to help Oculus getting enough funds to operate
Not an Oculus hater, but not a fan anymore. Still lots of respect for the team-Carmack, Abrash. Oculus is driven by big corporation principles now. That brings painful effects already, more to come in the future. This is not the Oculus I once cheered for.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

 Some say "we wouldn't have VR now if not for Oculus". I disagree.

PC Gamer said it perfectly:
"We can pretty much thank Oculus for making VR a reality. "

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-vr-headset/

Oculus is the only high-end headset that is a viable option currently.

Plus, Ronson's and Atmos' year-after-year presence on this forum is proof that we wouldn't have VR now if not for Oculus.
 B) 

kzintzi
Trustee
to add information into the discussion (which is like fuel to the fire, but with better facts), there was a great OC4 session on Dash and project integration that as background explained some of the thinking behind what and how Home does what it does, and why they did it - need to read between the lines (and not assume from the outset that people are intentionally ignoring or letting the PCVR scene die) but it does point out that there is an actual roadmap.

video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4OJ9CouJ4M

of course the video is just interesting if you're writing apps and wanting them to integrate properly (and not end up dumping people to "The Void" :smiley:  )

Though you are more than slightly incoherent, I agree with you Madam,
a plum is a terrible thing to do to a nostril.