Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#11

Post by nawitus »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #5

I always think about the people developing such groundbreaking technology, sweating for years to craft something revolutionary, putting everything you got into a product, just to get some guy from the Wall Street Journal declare that it's not ready for mainstream. A guy that knows nothing of the challenges, the hurdles and quite frankly, nothing of the actual success the produt will actually have. But just because Wa…

He wrote a review for the mainstream person, who is not interested in the challenges of building the product, but rather how good it is.

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#12

Post by nawitus »

therobot24 wrote: post #2

The review read like he was expecting it to be the iphone version of VR. Complaints about using an expensive computer, the cord, having to use muscle memory, etc. come off like the type of person who wouldn't be interested in the Oculus in the first place. While I agree that it looks clunky, really it's the performance that most would-be buyers are interested in.

That sounds like the review is valuable for most people, since most people would be interested in knowing about these complaints when making a purchase decision about the product.

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#13

Post by Sir_Substance »

>There’s already another VR rig that doesn’t have a tether—and it costs a fraction of the Rift. Samsung’s $100 Gear VR, made in partnership with Oculus, is powered by a smartphone that you physically insert in front of two lenses. The extra costs of the Rift (monetary and otherwise) would be justified if its image quality were dramatically better than the Gear’s, but it isn’t.

I already got the sense that the author really hadn't done much research before writing the piece, but that statement is very telling. The key benefits of a rift over a gear vr are in it's motion capture, the processing power made available to it by the attached computer and not being time restricted by limited battery life, and I would expect a critic to know that.

As it stands I respect the dudes view, and it'll be one shared by a lot of non-gamers, but this is basically a lets-play, not a critical review.

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#15

Post by A-F1V3 »

rwmj wrote: post #4

How does it work with glasses? The original DK1 had an awkward set of lenses that you had to place inside the headset.

I tried the consumer version while wearing glasses a few weeks ago. No lenses were changed out and the device just sat over top of the glasses, it was fairly comfortable but I only spent less than 5 mins with it on.

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#17

Post by weego »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #5

I always think about the people developing such groundbreaking technology, sweating for years to craft something revolutionary, putting everything you got into a product, just to get some guy from the Wall Street Journal declare that it's not ready for mainstream. A guy that knows nothing of the challenges, the hurdles and quite frankly, nothing of the actual success the produt will actually have. But just because Wa…

This is a major logical fallacy I've faced in "engineering". Technical challenges and effort are irrelevant to the consumer: their contract is the exchange of disposable income for something that they get pleasure / function out of in a way that is measurable against the investment. If you've spent years and invested everything in something that sucks, then it sucks until someone evolves it into something that doesn't. That is why first to market is not always the golden ticket.

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#18

Post by jsprogrammer »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #13

>There’s already another VR rig that doesn’t have a tether—and it costs a fraction of the Rift. Samsung’s $100 Gear VR, made in partnership with Oculus, is powered by a smartphone that you physically insert in front of two lenses. The extra costs of the Rift (monetary and otherwise) would be justified if its image quality were dramatically better than the Gear’s, but it isn’t. I already got the sense that the author…

Can't you attach your phone to a computer and grid power with a USB cable?

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#19

Post by [deleted] »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #13

>There’s already another VR rig that doesn’t have a tether—and it costs a fraction of the Rift. Samsung’s $100 Gear VR, made in partnership with Oculus, is powered by a smartphone that you physically insert in front of two lenses. The extra costs of the Rift (monetary and otherwise) would be justified if its image quality were dramatically better than the Gear’s, but it isn’t. I already got the sense that the author…

[deleted]

Re: Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream

#20

Post by mattmanser »

tryitnow wrote: post #16

Was anyone expecting it to be really ready for mainstream use?

In case you missed it, there's another review linked in the article for a hardcore gamer's take:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/28/oculus-rift-is-built-...

It, too, is negative.

Post reply on HN