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

41–50 of 126 posts

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

#41

Post by kitcar »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #34
jsprogrammer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Off the top of my head I don't think you can with the gear vr (doesn't the USB port get taken up by the headset?), but even if you can, one of the authors key complaints leading into that statement was that the rift was not wireless. If you told him to wire up his gear vr, he wouldn't be impressed.

Correct, the interface between the phone and the headset is the charge port, but there is an additional port on the Gear VR itself to allow for charging while being used.

The original Gear VR ("Innovator edition") could not be charged while used though if I remember correctly.

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

#42

Post by dreamcompiler »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #18
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?

The Gear VR has an extra USB port that you can connect to a charger which keeps the phone powered while in use. Or (more convenient) you can connect it to a self-contained brick battery you could wear on your waist.

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

#43

Post by MBCook »

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…

I've been following VR for the last year or so. There is no question that the Rift has better specs and can do better graphics than the Gear.

But I've read more than a few people in the VR space (game journalists, developers) say that there is something special about the Gear because there is no cable. There's nothing you have to keep conscious of so you don't trip over it or feel it on your back breaking immersion.

The Gear VR could be enhanced with better tracking, and as new phones come out it will get better processing power. I think Fowler is right.

VR is very new. Let's say your a consumer who wants to play with it. What's a better investment? $2200 in a PC and a Rift, or $100 that clips on your phone (assuming you're on Samsung)?

If you just want to try it for now, play around a bit? The Gear is very compelling.

(I'd love one, but I use an iPhone. I've got a PS VR on order though.)

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

#44

Post by minimaxir »

Retric wrote: post #35
minimaxir wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

World of Warcraft went mainstream because it didn't require a gaming PC to play in 2004.

There are more than 10x as many active Steam accounts (125m) vs active WoW accounts at it's peak (12m) in 2010. Sure, a mid to low end PC could play WoW in 2004, but it only broke 2.5 million subscribers in late 2005. http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/wow-sub... And 10m in 2008. Give it 4 years and a GTX 970 will be a very low end graphics card.

Comparing the number of Steam accounts to WoW accounts is comparing apples to oranges. (And also makes an implicit assumption that everyone who has a Steam account has a gaming PC, which is not a good assumption.)

In 2004, Steam had no noteworthy buzz and its only purpose was Half-Life 2 DRM.

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

#45

Post by kzhahou »

tryitnow wrote: post #16

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

Absolutely!! I mean, we can quibble over the exact meaning, but the oculus team took so long precisely in order to have a wide-adoption product instead of a tech demo, which was available over a year ago.

The Big Question we all have right now is precisely this: will VR enter mainstream or will it be a gimmick? Oculus is supposed to be leading that charge. If they can't break into some huge number of homes, then the VR ecosystem will die before it gets started. Goodbye JauntVR, etc.

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

#46

Post by MBCook »

Retric wrote: post #22
vernie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operative word here is "mainstream"

Is ~50 million people "mainstream"? Considering he complained about downloading drivers this must be very easy to setup. Gaming PC's used to be ~2,000$, this is 600 + 950PC = 1550$. https://www.oculus.com/en-us/oculus-ready-pcs/ Which is not free but hardly going to break most people. Don't forget this is just a mid-range gaming PC which many people are going to get anyway which drops this down to the cost of a high…

If any go mainstream it will be the PS VR. Sony has 30m consoles out there, and it only costs $500 to get setup with PS VR. Total price is about $800-900.

Plug and play, games work great because they're designed for the system.

On the other hand with the Rift and the Vive you need a PC which has to be up to spec, the hardware is more expensive, etc.

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

#47

Post by Sir_Substance »

MBCook wrote: post #43
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…

I've been following VR for the last year or so. There is no question that the Rift has better specs and can do better graphics than the Gear. But I've read more than a few people in the VR space (game journalists, developers) say that there is something special about the Gear because there is no cable. There's nothing you have to keep conscious of so you don't trip over it or feel it on your back breaking immersion.…

>$2200 in a PC and a Rift, or $100 that clips on your phone (assuming you're on Samsung)?

Your figures are a little off. A rift is (all following figures in USD) $599, and a computer that will support it is generally quoted at $950, making it's package price $1550. You can buy bundles that include a Rift and an Oculus ready PC for $1499[1].

The gear VR only works with very recent phones, and only works on all games without heat problems on the S7. S7's are generally quoted at $700, making the package price $800.

Rough figures, I know, but yours are well out of whack.

[1] http://www.techtimes.com/articles/134240/20160217/oculus-rea...

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

#48

Post by Qworg »

Retric wrote: post #22
vernie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operative word here is "mainstream"

Is ~50 million people "mainstream"? Considering he complained about downloading drivers this must be very easy to setup. Gaming PC's used to be ~2,000$, this is 600 + 950PC = 1550$. https://www.oculus.com/en-us/oculus-ready-pcs/ Which is not free but hardly going to break most people. Don't forget this is just a mid-range gaming PC which many people are going to get anyway which drops this down to the cost of a high…

"Which is not free but hardly going to break most people" - most people make ~$4500 a month or less (pre taxes). $1550 is a big chunk of cash for most people.

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

#49

Post by drzaiusapelord »

mpd wrote: post #26
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.

A player with glasses is on Giant Bomb's stream as I type this, and says "it ain't great". He's been at it 20-ish minutes.

My reading of this is that he's unhappy with using a gamepad for VR, which is understandable. I think the Vive is going to be much more impressive. Oculus launching without proper touch controllers was a very risky move. I think ultimately its going to hurt them, and people will be pissed that they need to spend another $200 to get what anyone would consider a proper VR experience.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4cagl1/giant_bomb_liv...

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

#50

Post by Retric »

minimaxir wrote: post #44
Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more than 10x as many active Steam accounts (125m) vs active WoW accounts at it's peak (12m) in 2010. Sure, a mid to low end PC could play WoW in 2004, but it only broke 2.5 million subscribers in late 2005. http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/wow-sub... And 10m in 2008. Give it 4 years and a GTX 970 will be a very low end graphics card.

Comparing the number of Steam accounts to WoW accounts is comparing apples to oranges. (And also makes an implicit assumption that everyone who has a Steam account has a gaming PC, which is not a good assumption.) In 2004, Steam had no noteworthy buzz and its only purpose was Half-Life 2 DRM.

Steam survey actually provides good hardware numbers.

The important thing is with the number of Steam Users each 1% is more than 1 million people. Thus PS: Active Steam account = bought something from steam AND logged on in the last 2 weeks. Which IMO is a much higher hurdle than most website tracking. And clearly not all gaming PC's are on Steam.

Post reply on HN