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

81–90 of 126 posts

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

#81

Post by drzaiusapelord »

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)?

I'm guessing there's a middle ground here. We already have the Solun Q shipping shortly, which uses a low power AMD CPU/GPU combo that can deliver graphics that land somewhere between what a phone and a console can do. All of it running on battery power with no wires.

Its an interesting form factor at the very least. I imagine the first gen of all these products will be pretty poor, but being attached to a $1500 PC is going to be the first problem solved in this space. Its too much of a hassle and cost. Being able to just buy a VR set that you turn on and put on your head is going to be a big win. People won't be intimidated by this and will prefer an all-in-one machine. It'll need to ship with motion controls and somehow get this all to work without a lighthouse/usb camera system.

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

#82

Post by Retric »

striking wrote: post #70
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.

My 4-year-old GTX660 is a mid-range card even today. Give it five or six years.

A GTX 660 is a low end card. A GTX 950 is 150$ and ~5-10% faster than a GTX 660.

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

#84

Post by cableshaft »

duaneb wrote: post #71
Retric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Is ~50 million people "mainstream"? Where is this number coming from? Even the people I know interested in VR aren't exactly leaping to buy this first generation, and that's exactly what the review should (and does) reveal—you should continue waiting unless you want to deal with typical early adopter issues.

Yep, pretty big gamer here, have three of the current gen consoles, even bought a simple Google Cardboard peripheral to get a feel for VR, but I'm probably not going to drop serious cash on anything that's out there for at least a year, and until I see which way the wind is blowing. I'm excited for it, but it's too much money for me to spend right now.

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

#85

Post by striking »

Retric wrote: post #82
striking wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 4-year-old GTX660 is a mid-range card even today. Give it five or six years.

A GTX 660 is a low end card. A GTX 950 is 150$ and ~5-10% faster than a GTX 660.

It is an old card that was fairly high-end when it came out. It matches the graphical capabilities of the PS4 today.

It's not low end, it's mid-range. HD at 60fps (often higher) on med-high settings on everything but the very most recent games (without MSAA).

Again, you'll probably need to wait more than 4 years for a high-end card to become "very low end". I'd give it five or six years.

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

#86

Post by jsprogrammer »

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.

The person I responded to was complaining that the rift alternative (a phone with appropriate lenses) had limited time usage due to relying on a battery. Most phones can run indefinitely by hooking them up to an external power source, obviating one of the poster's concerns. Additionally, you could augment the phone's processing power through a high-speed interconnect (like the USB cable that also supplies continuous power).

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

#87

Post by Retric »

striking wrote: post #85
Retric wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A GTX 660 is a low end card. A GTX 950 is 150$ and ~5-10% faster than a GTX 660.

It is an old card that was fairly high-end when it came out. It matches the graphical capabilities of the PS4 today. It's not low end, it's mid-range. HD at 60fps (often higher) on med-high settings on everything but the very most recent games (without MSAA). Again, you'll probably need to wait more than 4 years for a high-end card to become "very low end". I'd give it five or six years.

IMO, sub 150 = low end, 150-320 = mid range, 320+ = high end. The 660 GTX is worse than a 150$ graphics card (GTX 950).

Granted, in terms of hardware people are currently using the GTX 660 might still be mid range.

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

#88

Post by MBCook »

wlesieutre wrote: post #79
MBCook wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression you needed a $1500 PC. So I'll give you that. I'm assuming you're not buying the phone but that you already have one. People still get them with subsidies too. The point is that for someone who wants to dip their toes and had a recent Samsung phone the Gear is DRASTICALLY cheaper. If you have a PS4 (or even if you don't) then the PS VR is cheaper too. For people who aren't already committed…

> The point is that for someone who wants to dip their toes and had a recent Samsung phone the Gear is DRASTICALLY cheaper. If you have a PS4 (or even if you don't) then the PS VR is cheaper too. And on the other end of that, I have a GTX 970 but my phone is from Sony and I don't own a console. If I want to get into VR, the Rift is my cheapest option. Different target markets - the Gear is aimed at the general public…

> the Gear is aimed at the general public with Samsung phones, the Rift is aimed at PC gamers with gaming PCs

And the article is aimed at the general public, not gamers. That's why there is nothing wrong with Fowler's analysis.

I'm not arguing that the Gear is going to give the best experience of all solutions, I was defending Fowler's point.

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

#89

Post by striking »

Retric wrote: post #87
striking wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an old card that was fairly high-end when it came out. It matches the graphical capabilities of the PS4 today. It's not low end, it's mid-range. HD at 60fps (often higher) on med-high settings on everything but the very most recent games (without MSAA). Again, you'll probably need to wait more than 4 years for a high-end card to become "very low end". I'd give it five or six years.

IMO, sub 150 = low end, 150-320 = mid range, 320+ = high end. The 660 GTX is worse than a 150$ graphics card (GTX 950). Granted, in terms of hardware people are currently using the GTX 660 might still be mid range.

Right. I was basing my comparison on performance rather than price. But in terms of price, you're absolutely correct, the GTX 660 isn't worth much.

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

#90

Post by Qworg »

Retric wrote: post #69
Qworg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Depends on context. You can get a reliable used car for ~12k. Look at how many people spend 2+K more than that.

Owning a VR headset does not (yet) act as a prerequisite to get most jobs.
Post reply on HN