8 ms·

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 c

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.
      - vanattab 8y ago
        ≥but what we're really waiting for is whatever Valve are up to. You could be waiting a while. If I am not mistaken valve just let go most of their VR headset staff. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/3/7/18255205/valve-employee-layoffs-hardware-vive-vr-division https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
        entropicdrifter 8y ago
        Yeah, looks like they're pivoting their non-Steam/game related dev strategies more towards linux gaming and better streaming support than anything else
- taneq 8y ago
  > No need to mess with sensors during setup; just plug and play. If that's what you want, the WMR headsets have provided it at a lower price point and equivalent spec for years.
  - yboris 8y ago
    WMR = Windows Mixed Reality. Had to look it up. Please ease off on the acronyms or add a parentheses to clarify.
    - taneq 8y ago
      Sorry, I'm usually more careful with this kind of thing but having one of these headsets (Sony HMD Odyssey, it's great and the newer version is meant to be even better) and lurking on /r/WindowsMR it somehow didn't even cross my mind that it was an obscure acryonym.
SebastianKra 8y ago
The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago. Price, PC-Specs, and ridiculously complicated setups are the reason, why VR hasn't taken off yet. The Rift-S helps with all of those issues. It makes some smart tradeoffs, so that it is accessible to more people.
- Judgmentality 8y ago
  > The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago. This is wrong. All of the other things you mention matter, but at the end of the day I cannot buy a compelling VR experience at any price. VR itself still needs to be improved before all of those other things matter. VR is incredibly underwhelming at this point, regardless of price. I'd say it's still a few years away from being good enough I'd want to buy it, and I'd expect to have to pay over $1000 for that pleasure when the time comes (ignoring the cost of the top-of-the-line gaming PC to accompany it). And that's only talking about the actual technology in the headset, that's not even discussing the lack of good content. And many (maybe most) people still get sick when using VR for more than an hour, so the argument it's "good enough" is absurd.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    Have you tried PC VR recently? It's very compelling. There are obviously still lots of things that could be improved, but high resolution isn't necessary to make VR "compelling" any more HD screens were necessary to make console gaming compelling.
  - ricardobeat 8y ago
    What have you tried so far? I bought myself a Rift during the last Black Friday and am very pleased. BeatSaber and Eleven Table Tennis alone make it worth.
    - Judgmentality 8y ago
      I tried the Oculus Rift at Facebook HQ with all of the fancy dongles, including things I'm not allowed to talk about. I've also tried the regular HTC Vive. Both felt like a gimmick, and the Vive made my girlfriend nauseous after a few minutes. I'm a big believer in the potential of VR, but the current options do not impress me. I think it's still a few years away for someone like me, and still another 5+ years where it starts to become mainstream (largely due to cost and lack of content).
throwaway34241 8y ago
I think after the Quest it would be a big mistake to make PC headsets a separate product anyway. Any resources for Rift 2 would be better invested on Quest 2 and making it work well with a PC (plugged in, wirelessly, or both). I can't see any fundamental design differences between a good mobile and PC headset. Sure the PC can drive a higher resolution on most games (for more detail or field-of-view). But even mobile can run certain apps like virtual theaters at high res, and it will benefit from less screen door effect. The weight distribution of the battery needs to be solved in any case, and a wireless PC-only headset would need a battery too. If an ultra-high res screen increases the cost they can always do multiple products but I don't see why they should segment them into PC/mobile. I think most PC users would rather pay an extra $50 for an all-in-one device that works with PC and standalone than $400 each for entirely separate headsets. Looking forward a little bit, it might make sense for Oculus to make a compact wireless eGPU if they want to be competitive on high end graphics, since it could probably have much better setup, cost, and portability for users that don't already own a gaming PC (in addition to providing a standard performance profile). If the external graphics brick could have a snap on battery and be used on a backpack/vest even better. I've tried some arcade type stuff with multiple users, haptic feedback etc and it's pretty cool although totally non-standardized.
ifiri90pokn 8y ago
The difference being the iPhone had much broader appeal and sold like crazy. Easily justifying the cost of R&Ding and producing bigger and bigger leaps in capabilities. And in that era, iPhones were still subsidized by carrier contracts. VR is still of very limited appeal. Costs a bundle if you need to get a PC that can power it. I have yet to try any of the options and I am pretty close to the target demographic: tech worker with dollars to spare, hardware hacker, neophyte game engine programmer, and I could not care less about VR.

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.
    - vanattab 8y ago
      ≥but what we're really waiting for is whatever Valve are up to. You could be waiting a while. If I am not mistaken valve just let go most of their VR headset staff. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/3/7/18255205/valve-employee-layoffs-hardware-vive-vr-division https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
      - entropicdrifter 8y ago
        Yeah, looks like they're pivoting their non-Steam/game related dev strategies more towards linux gaming and better streaming support than anything else
taneq 8y ago
> No need to mess with sensors during setup; just plug and play. If that's what you want, the WMR headsets have provided it at a lower price point and equivalent spec for years.
- yboris 8y ago
  WMR = Windows Mixed Reality. Had to look it up. Please ease off on the acronyms or add a parentheses to clarify.
  - taneq 8y ago
    Sorry, I'm usually more careful with this kind of thing but having one of these headsets (Sony HMD Odyssey, it's great and the newer version is meant to be even better) and lurking on /r/WindowsMR it somehow didn't even cross my mind that it was an obscure acryonym.

SebastianKra 8y ago

The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago. Price, PC-Specs, and ridiculously complicated setups are the reason, why VR hasn't taken off yet. The Rift-S helps with all of those issues. It makes some smart tradeoffs, so that it is accessible to more people.

Judgmentality 8y ago
> The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago. This is wrong. All of the other things you mention matter, but at the end of the day I cannot buy a compelling VR experience at any price. VR itself still needs to be improved before all of those other things matter. VR is incredibly underwhelming at this point, regardless of price. I'd say it's still a few years away from being good enough I'd want to buy it, and I'd expect to have to pay over $1000 for that pleasure when the time comes (ignoring the cost of the top-of-the-line gaming PC to accompany it). And that's only talking about the actual technology in the headset, that's not even discussing the lack of good content. And many (maybe most) people still get sick when using VR for more than an hour, so the argument it's "good enough" is absurd.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  Have you tried PC VR recently? It's very compelling. There are obviously still lots of things that could be improved, but high resolution isn't necessary to make VR "compelling" any more HD screens were necessary to make console gaming compelling.
- ricardobeat 8y ago
  What have you tried so far? I bought myself a Rift during the last Black Friday and am very pleased. BeatSaber and Eleven Table Tennis alone make it worth.
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    I tried the Oculus Rift at Facebook HQ with all of the fancy dongles, including things I'm not allowed to talk about. I've also tried the regular HTC Vive. Both felt like a gimmick, and the Vive made my girlfriend nauseous after a few minutes. I'm a big believer in the potential of VR, but the current options do not impress me. I think it's still a few years away for someone like me, and still another 5+ years where it starts to become mainstream (largely due to cost and lack of content).

throwaway34241 8y ago

I think after the Quest it would be a big mistake to make PC headsets a separate product anyway. Any resources for Rift 2 would be better invested on Quest 2 and making it work well with a PC (plugged in, wirelessly, or both). I can't see any fundamental design differences between a good mobile and PC headset. Sure the PC can drive a higher resolution on most games (for more detail or field-of-view). But even mobile can run certain apps like virtual theaters at high res, and it will benefit from less screen door effect. The weight distribution of the battery needs to be solved in any case, and a wireless PC-only headset would need a battery too. If an ultra-high res screen increases the cost they can always do multiple products but I don't see why they should segment them into PC/mobile. I think most PC users would rather pay an extra $50 for an all-in-one device that works with PC and standalone than $400 each for entirely separate headsets. Looking forward a little bit, it might make sense for Oculus to make a compact wireless eGPU if they want to be competitive on high end graphics, since it could probably have much better setup, cost, and portability for users that don't already own a gaming PC (in addition to providing a standard performance profile). If the external graphics brick could have a snap on battery and be used on a backpack/vest even better. I've tried some arcade type stuff with multiple users, haptic feedback etc and it's pretty cool although totally non-standardized.

ifiri90pokn 8y ago

The difference being the iPhone had much broader appeal and sold like crazy. Easily justifying the cost of R&Ding and producing bigger and bigger leaps in capabilities. And in that era, iPhones were still subsidized by carrier contracts. VR is still of very limited appeal. Costs a bundle if you need to get a PC that can power it. I have yet to try any of the options and I am pretty close to the target demographic: tech worker with dollars to spare, hardware hacker, neophyte game engine programmer, and I could not care less about VR.