7 ms·

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about ruins Skyrim VR)[1]. Small wonder Brendan Iribe left Facebook over this[2]. They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. Really hope Valve steps up this year with a decent headset + the Knuckles controllers. Nothing wrong with building headsets for the more casual consumers but why can't someone release a decent gen 2 headset with the upgrades that everyone has been wanting. 1: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/hands-on-with-the-new-399-oculus-rift-s-more-pixels-zero-cameras-better-fit/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/hands-on-with-the-new... 2: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/279364-oculus-rift-2-canceled-co-founder-leaves-facebook https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/279364-oculus-rift-2-canc... EDIT: After a little more reading it looks like the Quest (their equally priced all-in-one headset) has a higher resolution and a physical IPD adjustment. What the hell are you even paying for with this? You get a worse headset for the same price that lacks all the onboard hardware?

Ajedi32 8y ago
On the other hand, there are a lot of things that were improved: - Slightly higher resolution (1080×1200 per-eye -> 1,280×1,440 per-eye) - Inside-out tracking - Guardian can be set up via video passthrough - More comfortable halo head strap (better weight distribution, more surface area) - Wider lens sweet spot - Fewer god rays (better lenses) - Less pronounced screen door effect (better lenses, RGB-stripe subpixel layout) - Low-latency stereo-corrected video passthrough (Passthrough+) - Headphone jack - Slightly longer cable (4m -> 5m) Not a huge upgrade of course, but that's probably why they called it the Rift S and not the Rift 2.
- mikenew 8y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong, but we're on year 3 of this brand new tech and it's "kinda better, kinda worse". Think about the iPhone in 2007 vs 2010. They can call it whatever they like; it's still an utter disappointment, at least to a gamer like myself. If we're going to get to a point where VR actually feels like virtual reality then someone is going to have to push the envelope, and it clearly isn't going to be Facebook.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    I think right now Oculus is more focused on bringing VR to a wider market than they are on pushing specs. If you look at it from that perspective, the Rift S is a _massive_ improvement. No need to mess with sensors during setup; just plug and play. And it's not like they've abandoned R&D into higher-end tech. It's just that resolution and FOV improvements are bottlenecked by modern GPUs. To overcome that bottleneck will require a breakthrough in foveated rendering technology; which Oculus is working on but hasn't achieved yet. (I believe Michael Abrash, the chief scientist at Oculus, estimated it'll take them another ~4 years to get the technology to the point where it's ready for mainstream consumer use.)
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      The quest is an even larger step given the fact that it doesn't require an external PC. But still, I would love to see something more gamer oriented.
      - cmsimike 8y ago
        Didn't the second Vive release provide something more gamer oriented?
        davefp 8y ago
        That's not what HTC were going for with the Pro, it's geared towards commercial use. Hobbyists are still buying it (naturally) but what we're really waiting for is whatever Valve are up to.
- gcbw2 8y ago
  > Rift S and not the Rift 2 from cars industry: S version of any model means worse upholstery, worse radio, worse trim, worse engine, worse everything, but with a plastic spoiler!
  - RussianCow 8y ago
    Unless you're Tesla. ;)
    - ganoushoreilly 8y ago
      Or Audi!
    - BoorishBears 8y ago
      Tesla doesn’t have S versions, just a Model S Audi as mentioned has S models and they’re legitimately better than their non-S counter parts (S-line package is not the same)
  - ex3ndr 8y ago
    quite opposite, see Mercedes S-Klasse.
    - gcbw2 8y ago
      s class and model s are models not badges on top of models. But even the mercedez c class have a sports submodel that falls into the S badge paradigm
      - ex3ndr 8y ago
        There are bunch of tech not available on C-Klasse or even E-Klasse that is on S one.
  - lagadu 8y ago
    Not for Porsche or Audi.
- superkuh 8y ago
  > Wider lens sweet spot ... and it's gone. Software IPD means a tiny sweet spot. Even if this is mitigated by slightly better optics it'll be smaller. Plus lack of hardware IPD will cause eye fatigue and headaches; discomfort is still an important part of VR HMD considerations. It didn't go away. And using LCD means no blacks. So crappy space sims and games that have to be made to not use black.
vlan0 8y ago
>They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. I'm a little surprised they have taken this route. Especially with someone like John Carmack for a CTO.
- pavlov 8y ago
  Carmack’s interest at Oculus seems to have always been low-end VR. He wrote the SDK for the Gear VR.
  - rocky1138 8y ago
    I think he is like a demoscene coder; he enjoys pushing limited hardware beyond its supposed limits.
    - pavlov 8y ago
      That’s what I assumed too. There’s just not that much left to be done with tight C++ loops in “triple-A” production value VR, it’s mostly about giant asset pipelines.
nenadst 8y ago
If inside-out tracking is ok then why not go WMR - the new HP Reverb sounds actually nice .. 2160 x 2160 px per eye - 114 FOV 90Hz LCD but the price is also high ~599$
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  The Rift S has much better tracking and controllers. 5 cameras instead of two, and the Touch controllers are much more ergonomic than what WMR provides.
rubicon33 8y ago
> Why can't someone release a decent gen 2 headset with the upgrades that everyone has been wanting. Seriously. If anyone "should" be the one to be pushing things forward it's Oculus. Yet they seem dead set on bringing this to the masses, rather than releasing a "PRO" headset. The money may be in the masses, but it sure feels like a big FU from oculus for them to seemingly abandon the pro consumer.
- brian-armstrong 8y ago
  How likey is it that people will develop content if the possible install base is only people with high-end headsets?
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    More likely than they will, so long as the device remains a poorly functioning novelty. IMHO, we haven't reached the point where VR technology can be commoditized in this way. Even the high end rigs have a long way to go.
  - kaibee 8y ago
    > How likey is it that people will develop content if the possible install base is only people with high-end headsets? This isn't how tech goes mainstream. Facebook is trying to eat its cake before its ready. There's a lot of influencers in tech who, while bullish on VR's future, basically write off current VR. In its current state, isn't worth it for them, and they're the ones who can afford to have real VR setups and are passionate about tech in general. They're not going to recommend it to their followers either, since they themselves aren't impressed. Current content is limited by the capabilities of the VR hardware, not the other way around.
- sorenjan 8y ago
  Don't forget that they're owned by Facebook now. Facebook probably have different priorities than hardcore gamers.
nabla9 8y ago
Maybe the right way is to start with expensive professional vr-gear like https://varjo.com/ https://varjo.com/ is doing and then gradually get into consumer products years later.
basch 8y ago
>They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. So basically every company in the world that prefers marketshare to niche. Theres some nice exceptions like pinboard.in, but for the most part, everyone is willing to sell out to Walmart hoping for dominance.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Nvidia definitely hasn't forgotten about super hardcore gamers, even if people buying 2080 Ti's are a tiny minority.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    No but Nvidia still has a diversified customer base too. High end enthusiast gamers are only one component. Occulus seems to be trying to diversify a bit too.
outworlder 8y ago
> The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you If that's correct, this ruins Robo Recall, of all things. Yeah, maybe it will make setup more convenient, but are people really being thrown off by that? A 10 year old can figure it out (tested!). Yes, taking USB ports is not convenient, but the camera positioning is more forgiving than Vive's implementation (those need to see each other). No significant jump in resolution. Lower refresh rate, LCD. It's kinda underwhelming. > EDIT: After a little more reading it looks like the Quest (their equally priced all-in-one headset) has a higher resolution and a physical IPD adjustment. What the hell are you even paying for with this? You get a worse headset for the same price that lacks all the onboard hardware? Wake me up when the Quest is able to run Elite Dangerous, X-Plane, Subnautica or similar stuff. Even PCs can struggle.
- KallDrexx 8y ago
  If you look at the 5 camera placement on the headset it looks to cover a pretty heavy margin, including a wide FOV camera on the top. So you'd have to have your hand directly behind your back (and not at a height above your head) for it to not be able to track it, which seems like it would be uncomfortable in real gaming scenarios. John Carmack has also talked a decent bit about their inside-out tracking extrapolation tracking code to keep latency low. Their tracking predicts where your hand will be at the time a frame is rendered, not at the time the frame begins. This not only means the controller tracking will appear low latency but it also means it can figure out from the controller's sensors where it is when it can't get visual range for a second or two. So I imagine you'd have to hold your hand directly behind your back for more than a few seconds to really see the effects, and by the time your controller comes in range (way before you'd see your hand position) it should correct itself. That being said, some people with hands on did say the inside out tracking didn't do so well when the controller got too close to the front of the headset, so it's up in the air how bow and arrow type of movements will work.
  - admax88q 8y ago
    > which seems like it would be uncomfortable in real gaming scenarios. I routinely want to grab things of tables behind me in VR without turning my head off of the enemy in front. It's one of the things that makes VR feel immersive, the world keeps existing even if its outside your field of view.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Phlarp 8y ago
Maybe it's a market fit question? Certainly the original Oculus had a very successful kickstarter, but that was a ~$350 device and it was expected a standard gaming computer would be able to keep up with the resolution and refresh rates. Now it appears that for a "good VR experience" at the high end you need a ~$600 headset, a $1300 graphics card and a dedicated/padded room with no major breakable items. Even with all these things you are still left making unappetizing tradeoffs between resolution, refresh rate and frame rate.
- yboris 8y ago
  My $300 graphics card from 2 years ago handles all the VR just fine: Radon RX 480 - now costs about $200
  - Phlarp 8y ago
    yes, because nobody is trying to drive 4k per eye at 144hz with lower latencies than we can currently get to.
xbkingx 8y ago
That's because they've got all the enthusiasts they want right now. The S is clearly meant to bring more people into the VR market, not act as an upgrade for existing owners. It's a good option for people that waited to buy an HMD too long and don't want to get an old system that will be discontinued in a few months, and those that can't/don't want to deal with wiring up all the cameras/sensors. It also isn't a terrible option as a second VR setup. I have a Vive, and if I was really interested in Oculus exclusives and a little impatient, the S wouldn't be a terrible option. I don't see the S as an upgrade or competing product, but as an option targeted for a specific market based on all the data they've collected. That said, I agree it feels underwhelming, going to LCD from OLED is a bad move, and I don't trust inside-out tracking to work as well as advertised.
wildermuthn 8y ago
The move to casual is risky if it alienates the current user-base of gamers. However, it is my understanding that the number of VR gamers isn’t high enough to drive self-sustaining profits for VR developers. There’s a case to be made that a platform like VR can’t be sustained by gaming. That VR needs a killer business application. If that is true, then the Quest isn’t equipped to handle business use-cases (battery-life), and neither is the current Rift, whose onerous setup is a non-starter in an office. If the Rift S is a plug-and-play solution to sitting VR, and if the increase in resolution and lenses makes text legible, then we will finally have a practical platform for business software. The most immediate business use I see is remote collaboration. While meetings and white boards stand out as obvious wins, I’m thinking there is opportunity in reimagining the original killer apps: spreadsheets, word-processors, calendars, email, and of course, the web browser. No one could fix email. No one could figure out social browsing. No one could solve voice-dictation. No one seems to follow anyone’s calendar but their own. And as for spreadsheets, the monstrosity that is Airtable implies large unmet needs. VR needs a killer app, and it won’t be Doom. It will be the next Netscape, Excel, or Word.
- leoc 8y ago
  VR is already selling quite strongly to firms who use it for various kinds of training. One good indication of this is the strong market of backpack PCs https://www.roadtovr.com/vr-backpack-pc-at-a-glance/ https://www.roadtovr.com/vr-backpack-pc-at-a-glance/ despite the face that the backpack PC seems to have almost no adoption among home VR users. It also underlines the fact that current workplace VR users aren't particularly price-sensitive. It futher seems unlikely that they're usually all that bothered about sensor setup, though maybe some value or would value the wide play area that markerless inside-out tracking affords.
  - karmakaze 8y ago
    TIL Backpack PCs are a thing. I wonder how people would react if I sat in a coffee shop with a backpack PC/keyboard and doing dev in VR. Can I code on a Quest?
    - 8y ago
sundvor 8y ago
I was wondering why they didn't post FOV and resolution, and your post answers that question. My $120 Lenovo Explorer almost (?) looks better.
hombre_fatal 8y ago
How is this different from /r/gaming thinking that the only challenge in building anything is turning a dial, and if it's not perfect, then it's because you're incompetent for not simply turning the dial more.
- designcode 8y ago
  Excellent description
ineedasername 8y ago
I think Vive now has the enthusiast market wrapped up nicely, so I can understand why Occulus might want to target a low end market. Especially as it might prove to be larger. But it's really still early days for VR, much higher specs required than a typical mid range consumer PC, so it's hard to say where things will ultimately land.
oraphalous 8y ago
>Nothing wrong with building headsets for the more casual consumers... Not sure if this is true. There is nothing casual about blocking out the real world entirely with a sensory depriving helmet on your head. I just don't see a casual market for this tech until it integrates seamlessly with the real world.
dave7 8y ago
> After a little more reading it looks like the Quest (their equally priced all-in-one headset) has a higher resolution and a physical IPD adjustment. What the hell are you even paying for with this? You get a worse headset for the same price that lacks all the onboard hardware? It is absolutely mind-boggling that Oculus have not released a single SKU here - a Quest with an optional single cable (VirtualLink - USB C) that can connect to a PC to make it a Rift.

Ajedi32 8y ago

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that were improved: - Slightly higher resolution (1080×1200 per-eye -> 1,280×1,440 per-eye) - Inside-out tracking - Guardian can be set up via video passthrough - More comfortable halo head strap (better weight distribution, more surface area) - Wider lens sweet spot - Fewer god rays (better lenses) - Less pronounced screen door effect (better lenses, RGB-stripe subpixel layout) - Low-latency stereo-corrected video passthrough (Passthrough+) - Headphone jack - Slightly longer cable (4m -> 5m) Not a huge upgrade of course, but that's probably why they called it the Rift S and not the Rift 2.

mikenew 8y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but we're on year 3 of this brand new tech and it's "kinda better, kinda worse". Think about the iPhone in 2007 vs 2010. They can call it whatever they like; it's still an utter disappointment, at least to a gamer like myself. If we're going to get to a point where VR actually feels like virtual reality then someone is going to have to push the envelope, and it clearly isn't going to be Facebook.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  I think right now Oculus is more focused on bringing VR to a wider market than they are on pushing specs. If you look at it from that perspective, the Rift S is a _massive_ improvement. No need to mess with sensors during setup; just plug and play. And it's not like they've abandoned R&D into higher-end tech. It's just that resolution and FOV improvements are bottlenecked by modern GPUs. To overcome that bottleneck will require a breakthrough in foveated rendering technology; which Oculus is working on but hasn't achieved yet. (I believe Michael Abrash, the chief scientist at Oculus, estimated it'll take them another ~4 years to get the technology to the point where it's ready for mainstream consumer use.)
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    The quest is an even larger step given the fact that it doesn't require an external PC. But still, I would love to see something more gamer oriented.
    - cmsimike 8y ago
      Didn't the second Vive release provide something more gamer oriented?
      - davefp 8y ago
        That's not what HTC were going for with the Pro, it's geared towards commercial use. Hobbyists are still buying it (naturally) but what we're really waiting for is whatever Valve are up to.
gcbw2 8y ago
> Rift S and not the Rift 2 from cars industry: S version of any model means worse upholstery, worse radio, worse trim, worse engine, worse everything, but with a plastic spoiler!
- RussianCow 8y ago
  Unless you're Tesla. ;)
  - ganoushoreilly 8y ago
    Or Audi!
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    Tesla doesn’t have S versions, just a Model S Audi as mentioned has S models and they’re legitimately better than their non-S counter parts (S-line package is not the same)
- ex3ndr 8y ago
  quite opposite, see Mercedes S-Klasse.
  - gcbw2 8y ago
    s class and model s are models not badges on top of models. But even the mercedez c class have a sports submodel that falls into the S badge paradigm
    - ex3ndr 8y ago
      There are bunch of tech not available on C-Klasse or even E-Klasse that is on S one.
- lagadu 8y ago
  Not for Porsche or Audi.
superkuh 8y ago
> Wider lens sweet spot ... and it's gone. Software IPD means a tiny sweet spot. Even if this is mitigated by slightly better optics it'll be smaller. Plus lack of hardware IPD will cause eye fatigue and headaches; discomfort is still an important part of VR HMD considerations. It didn't go away. And using LCD means no blacks. So crappy space sims and games that have to be made to not use black.

vlan0 8y ago

>They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. I'm a little surprised they have taken this route. Especially with someone like John Carmack for a CTO.

pavlov 8y ago
Carmack’s interest at Oculus seems to have always been low-end VR. He wrote the SDK for the Gear VR.
- rocky1138 8y ago
  I think he is like a demoscene coder; he enjoys pushing limited hardware beyond its supposed limits.
  - pavlov 8y ago
    That’s what I assumed too. There’s just not that much left to be done with tight C++ loops in “triple-A” production value VR, it’s mostly about giant asset pipelines.

nenadst 8y ago

If inside-out tracking is ok then why not go WMR - the new HP Reverb sounds actually nice .. 2160 x 2160 px per eye - 114 FOV 90Hz LCD but the price is also high ~599$

Ajedi32 8y ago
The Rift S has much better tracking and controllers. 5 cameras instead of two, and the Touch controllers are much more ergonomic than what WMR provides.

rubicon33 8y ago

> Why can't someone release a decent gen 2 headset with the upgrades that everyone has been wanting. Seriously. If anyone "should" be the one to be pushing things forward it's Oculus. Yet they seem dead set on bringing this to the masses, rather than releasing a "PRO" headset. The money may be in the masses, but it sure feels like a big FU from oculus for them to seemingly abandon the pro consumer.

brian-armstrong 8y ago
How likey is it that people will develop content if the possible install base is only people with high-end headsets?
- WalterSear 8y ago
  More likely than they will, so long as the device remains a poorly functioning novelty. IMHO, we haven't reached the point where VR technology can be commoditized in this way. Even the high end rigs have a long way to go.
- kaibee 8y ago
  > How likey is it that people will develop content if the possible install base is only people with high-end headsets? This isn't how tech goes mainstream. Facebook is trying to eat its cake before its ready. There's a lot of influencers in tech who, while bullish on VR's future, basically write off current VR. In its current state, isn't worth it for them, and they're the ones who can afford to have real VR setups and are passionate about tech in general. They're not going to recommend it to their followers either, since they themselves aren't impressed. Current content is limited by the capabilities of the VR hardware, not the other way around.
sorenjan 8y ago
Don't forget that they're owned by Facebook now. Facebook probably have different priorities than hardcore gamers.

nabla9 8y ago

Maybe the right way is to start with expensive professional vr-gear like https://varjo.com/ https://varjo.com/ is doing and then gradually get into consumer products years later.

basch 8y ago

>They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. So basically every company in the world that prefers marketshare to niche. Theres some nice exceptions like pinboard.in, but for the most part, everyone is willing to sell out to Walmart hoping for dominance.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
Nvidia definitely hasn't forgotten about super hardcore gamers, even if people buying 2080 Ti's are a tiny minority.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  No but Nvidia still has a diversified customer base too. High end enthusiast gamers are only one component. Occulus seems to be trying to diversify a bit too.

outworlder 8y ago

> The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you If that's correct, this ruins Robo Recall, of all things. Yeah, maybe it will make setup more convenient, but are people really being thrown off by that? A 10 year old can figure it out (tested!). Yes, taking USB ports is not convenient, but the camera positioning is more forgiving than Vive's implementation (those need to see each other). No significant jump in resolution. Lower refresh rate, LCD. It's kinda underwhelming. > EDIT: After a little more reading it looks like the Quest (their equally priced all-in-one headset) has a higher resolution and a physical IPD adjustment. What the hell are you even paying for with this? You get a worse headset for the same price that lacks all the onboard hardware? Wake me up when the Quest is able to run Elite Dangerous, X-Plane, Subnautica or similar stuff. Even PCs can struggle.

KallDrexx 8y ago
If you look at the 5 camera placement on the headset it looks to cover a pretty heavy margin, including a wide FOV camera on the top. So you'd have to have your hand directly behind your back (and not at a height above your head) for it to not be able to track it, which seems like it would be uncomfortable in real gaming scenarios. John Carmack has also talked a decent bit about their inside-out tracking extrapolation tracking code to keep latency low. Their tracking predicts where your hand will be at the time a frame is rendered, not at the time the frame begins. This not only means the controller tracking will appear low latency but it also means it can figure out from the controller's sensors where it is when it can't get visual range for a second or two. So I imagine you'd have to hold your hand directly behind your back for more than a few seconds to really see the effects, and by the time your controller comes in range (way before you'd see your hand position) it should correct itself. That being said, some people with hands on did say the inside out tracking didn't do so well when the controller got too close to the front of the headset, so it's up in the air how bow and arrow type of movements will work.
- admax88q 8y ago
  > which seems like it would be uncomfortable in real gaming scenarios. I routinely want to grab things of tables behind me in VR without turning my head off of the enemy in front. It's one of the things that makes VR feel immersive, the world keeps existing even if its outside your field of view.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Phlarp 8y ago

Maybe it's a market fit question? Certainly the original Oculus had a very successful kickstarter, but that was a ~$350 device and it was expected a standard gaming computer would be able to keep up with the resolution and refresh rates. Now it appears that for a "good VR experience" at the high end you need a ~$600 headset, a $1300 graphics card and a dedicated/padded room with no major breakable items. Even with all these things you are still left making unappetizing tradeoffs between resolution, refresh rate and frame rate.

yboris 8y ago
My $300 graphics card from 2 years ago handles all the VR just fine: Radon RX 480 - now costs about $200
- Phlarp 8y ago
  yes, because nobody is trying to drive 4k per eye at 144hz with lower latencies than we can currently get to.

xbkingx 8y ago

That's because they've got all the enthusiasts they want right now. The S is clearly meant to bring more people into the VR market, not act as an upgrade for existing owners. It's a good option for people that waited to buy an HMD too long and don't want to get an old system that will be discontinued in a few months, and those that can't/don't want to deal with wiring up all the cameras/sensors. It also isn't a terrible option as a second VR setup. I have a Vive, and if I was really interested in Oculus exclusives and a little impatient, the S wouldn't be a terrible option. I don't see the S as an upgrade or competing product, but as an option targeted for a specific market based on all the data they've collected. That said, I agree it feels underwhelming, going to LCD from OLED is a bad move, and I don't trust inside-out tracking to work as well as advertised.

wildermuthn 8y ago

The move to casual is risky if it alienates the current user-base of gamers. However, it is my understanding that the number of VR gamers isn’t high enough to drive self-sustaining profits for VR developers. There’s a case to be made that a platform like VR can’t be sustained by gaming. That VR needs a killer business application. If that is true, then the Quest isn’t equipped to handle business use-cases (battery-life), and neither is the current Rift, whose onerous setup is a non-starter in an office. If the Rift S is a plug-and-play solution to sitting VR, and if the increase in resolution and lenses makes text legible, then we will finally have a practical platform for business software. The most immediate business use I see is remote collaboration. While meetings and white boards stand out as obvious wins, I’m thinking there is opportunity in reimagining the original killer apps: spreadsheets, word-processors, calendars, email, and of course, the web browser. No one could fix email. No one could figure out social browsing. No one could solve voice-dictation. No one seems to follow anyone’s calendar but their own. And as for spreadsheets, the monstrosity that is Airtable implies large unmet needs. VR needs a killer app, and it won’t be Doom. It will be the next Netscape, Excel, or Word.

leoc 8y ago
VR is already selling quite strongly to firms who use it for various kinds of training. One good indication of this is the strong market of backpack PCs https://www.roadtovr.com/vr-backpack-pc-at-a-glance/ https://www.roadtovr.com/vr-backpack-pc-at-a-glance/ despite the face that the backpack PC seems to have almost no adoption among home VR users. It also underlines the fact that current workplace VR users aren't particularly price-sensitive. It futher seems unlikely that they're usually all that bothered about sensor setup, though maybe some value or would value the wide play area that markerless inside-out tracking affords.
- karmakaze 8y ago
  TIL Backpack PCs are a thing. I wonder how people would react if I sat in a coffee shop with a backpack PC/keyboard and doing dev in VR. Can I code on a Quest?
  - 8y ago

sundvor 8y ago

I was wondering why they didn't post FOV and resolution, and your post answers that question. My $120 Lenovo Explorer almost (?) looks better.

hombre_fatal 8y ago

How is this different from /r/gaming thinking that the only challenge in building anything is turning a dial, and if it's not perfect, then it's because you're incompetent for not simply turning the dial more.

designcode 8y ago
Excellent description

ineedasername 8y ago

I think Vive now has the enthusiast market wrapped up nicely, so I can understand why Occulus might want to target a low end market. Especially as it might prove to be larger. But it's really still early days for VR, much higher specs required than a typical mid range consumer PC, so it's hard to say where things will ultimately land.

oraphalous 8y ago

>Nothing wrong with building headsets for the more casual consumers... Not sure if this is true. There is nothing casual about blocking out the real world entirely with a sensory depriving helmet on your head. I just don't see a casual market for this tech until it integrates seamlessly with the real world.

dave7 8y ago

> After a little more reading it looks like the Quest (their equally priced all-in-one headset) has a higher resolution and a physical IPD adjustment. What the hell are you even paying for with this? You get a worse headset for the same price that lacks all the onboard hardware? It is absolutely mind-boggling that Oculus have not released a single SKU here - a Quest with an optional single cable (VirtualLink - USB C) that can connect to a PC to make it a Rift.