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

91–100 of 126 posts

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

#91

Post by Retric »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #86
Sir_Substance wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Phones get very warm when you charge them while playing 3D games. I doubt you would want to have that much heat with an enclosed headset for very long. Unless you can get a lot of ventilation without letting light in.

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

#92

Post by Retric »

Qworg wrote: post #90
Retric wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Spending more than ~12k stops being about basic transportation.

AKA if you buy a car for 20k vs 12k the extra 8k was not needed.

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

#93

Post by wlesieutre »

MBCook wrote: post #88
wlesieutre wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I think we agree, but it feels like he's writing an article proclaiming "Tesla Roadster Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream" just because Elon Musk said that electric cars are going to be a transformational technology.

If the big takeaway of the article is "Bleeding edge product that isn't intended for the general public isn't ready for the general public" then I'm right on board with him.

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

#94

Post by nice_byte »

I got a chance to try out both Oculus and Vive at GDC this year. Oculus' image quality was exactly the way the author described - like looking through a screen door. Vive seemed to be much better (and its controllers had mind-blowing force feedback, which added some realism).

Overall, though, I have two major concerns about VR.

The first is limited range of movement. All VR experiences seem to require the player to either be seated or move in a confined space. But think of all the virtual miles you've walked in Fallout or GTA - it's not going to be possible with VR. I mean, sure, you could use a controller, but it's a solution similar to putting fake buttons on a touchscreen.

The second is that I'm afraid that this is as good as VR is ever going to get because of hardware limitations. People sometimes compare the current state of VR to the early days of gaming consoles, implying that it's going to get much better. But the NES and PS4 are separated by 30 years of moore's law, which is predicted to end in 2025 (only 9 years away). The pace at which hardware is getting better/faster is slowing down.

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

#95

Post by nice_byte »

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.

It works almost fine. I had to adjust the headset position on my face a couple of times to get better focus.

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

#96

Post by Pfhreak »

astrodust wrote: post #74
Pfhreak wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that mirroring the VR experience to a TV or monitor is absolutely delightful to watch. I've had people come over to play Alien Isolation, Dreadhalls, or Volo Airsport, and watching them play was a huge delight for everyone. The responses you get from someone who is trapped in a room with an alien are much more visceral.

You may as well lock people in an isolation pod. This is the problem, isn't it?

They aren't isolated, though. If you know you've got an audience only a foot or two away, you do behave differently.

In my experience, people often run their mouths constantly -- "Oh god, what's that, what's over there, is that the alien?" And there's feedback from the audience, "Oh shit, watch out!"

Not to mention the occasional breath on someone's neck or tap on the shoulder.

When the experience is over, you pull the headset up -- an action not too far removed from looking away from a monitor -- and immediately start sharing. "Man, in that room with the shadows, I was watching the alien for a good 20 seconds before any of you saw it!"

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

#97

Post by ipsum2 »

nice_byte wrote: post #94

I got a chance to try out both Oculus and Vive at GDC this year. Oculus' image quality was exactly the way the author described - like looking through a screen door. Vive seemed to be much better (and its controllers had mind-blowing force feedback, which added some realism). Overall, though, I have two major concerns about VR. The first is limited range of movement. All VR experiences seem to require the player to e…

With all due respect, all of these are known problems, with known solutions.

Problem 1: Check out the Virtuix Omni, as well as software-only solutions.

Problem 2: See foveated rendering.

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

#98

Post by tluyben2 »

spriggan3 wrote: post #32

VR itself isn't ready for mainstream period. The problem isn't Oculus Rift but the tech itself. Who can really spend an hour with a VR headset on ? very few people.

Oculus is meant for the more non causal gamer; I know quite a few of those and when they are playing they might as well have a VR set on. A friend of mine, when she is playing (and she plays for 3-4 hours per day) seems dead from a distance: when you come closer you see only her eyes and fingers move slightly while on the screen she is walking through large worlds wielding spells and weapons. Very few in % might be right but that is a lot of sales for the solutions that work for these people. I have a few of them (oculus backer, few simple ones that can be uses with a mobile phone) and I see uses as I do enjoy the experience and I do see the opportunity to, when the hardware allows, have enormous virtual screens when focusing on code or other work. My biggest issue for now is that all off them start to physically hurt when the weight of the device pushes the plastic into the cushioning in one location on my face after about 30 minutes.

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

#99

Post by cracell »

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's the problem though.

The VR PR machine is making it sound like these new VR headsets are something anyone can just buy, plugin and play with! But it's more complex than that.

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

#100

Post by sp332 »

atonse wrote: post #76
keypusher wrote: post #67

It's strange to have a non-gamer do the review for this, as he seems to know very little about the field, or computer gaming. I guess they are aiming for a mainstream opinion, but Occulus is not a mainstream device. It's a high-end gaming peripheral. For instance that the author mentions incredulously multiple times that his high-end PC requires two power cables, which I just don't understand. I found his colleague's…

Is that how the Oculus team has marketed it? That it's a peripheral only for hardcore gamers, and not at all mainstream? I doubt it.

It's not about hardcore gamers if you mean FPS or something. But it's not aiming at the middle of the market. It requires a high-end PC just to drive it, and it's an expensive peripheral, so it really can't be "mainstream". It's about people who are the most interested in VR gaming.
Post reply on HN