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

111–120 of 126 posts

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

#111

Post by cmiles74 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #36
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.

It IS the iPhone of VR. The first iPhone didn't have over-the-air updates, over-the-air app installs, over-the-air music downloads. The screen was crap (compared to today).

Anyone off the street could pick up an iPhone and do something productive in a couple of minutes. Everyone who bought a first generation iPhone was pretty impressed with the product itself; it took me at least a week before I really wished I could install more software on it. And even so, it was still really useful.

Compare this to the Oculus Rift, the average person doesn't even have a machine they can plug it into. I mean, who even has a desktop computer anymore? Everyone I know has a laptop.

The product is clearly aimed at serious gamers who have the money to sink into serious gaming rigs. The iPhone-of-VR it certainly is not.

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

#112

Post by MBCook »

wolfgke wrote: post #110
MBCook wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a WSJ article, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of their readership doesn't have a recent gaming PC, or at least the number is significantly less than those with a recent Samsung phone. All I was doing was defending Fowler's point that the Gear VR might be a better option for people wanting to dip their toes in for now without spending big $$$. Not the 'I have hundreds of dollars and a good computer' case…

> All I was doing was defending Fowler's point that the Gear VR might be a better option for people wanting to dip their toes in for now without spending big $$$. Perhaps even then is not a good idea after all. Consider the option that some Joe Average will try out Gear VR on his Samsung mobile phone and is dissatisfied with the quality (say, because it causes nausea on him). So he will avoid trying out VR again in t…

It could. I'm hoping it's 'good enough' if the software is done well.

I bought a Google Cardboard for my iPhone and the experience basically sucks. I can't use it with my glasses, and I get eyestrain (and everything is blurry) without them.

But it's still kind of neat and has me interested. I've got a PS VR on preorder. I'm hoping this one of those cases where if someone is shown that the apps are good enough that they'll see it as "Well this is only $100, I'm sure those $500+ versions do much better" in the same way a $800 smartphone is usually much better than a $100 feature phone.

You're right though. We still run the risk (with ALL of this, even bad games on the Rift/Vive) that consumers will quickly learn to avoid it due to a few very bad experiences. Oculus/Sony/Valve have been pushing hard to make sure developers don't screw it up. The Gear is a bit more wild-west.

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

#113

Post by MBCook »

treebeard901 wrote: post #63
MBCook wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It is worth mentioning that the PC requirements would be almost the same if all you wanted to do is play a modern game at steady frames per second (90) on a 2160x1200 monitor.

The big difference is that if you're gaming PC isn't up to 2160x1200 and your framerate drops to 60 or 45 it just doesn't look as awesome. Reports I've heard (listening to Ben Kuchera on a podcast right now) say that when you're in an Oculus and the framerate drops (say just to 60) you can get VERY sick VERY fast.

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

#114

Post by rnernento »

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.…

You are not alone, John Carmack (one of the reasons I started taking VR seriously) is a fan of mobile.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/04/oculuss-technology-guru-jo...

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

#115

Post by Gratsby »

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.…

$100 investment in a Gear or a $20 investment in Cardboard has you chomping at the bit for more.

It will be another generation before VR really comes to roost, but by putting this in the hands of early adopters it really opens up the imagination of developers - and it opens up their abilities to actually get to work.

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

#116

Post by loopbit »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #47
MBCook wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

On the other hand, you have to consider ISP deals. I've just got the S7 plus the Gear VR for 200 euros. Way cheaper than any option that includes the Rift.

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

#117

Post by mzs »

nawitus wrote: post #58
Sir_Substance wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>$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 w…

What game causes heat problems on the S6?

It becomes even more of a problem when placed into an enclosure that mostly traps the head of your head and the phone itself.

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

#118

Post by smacktoward »

nawitus wrote: post #58
Sir_Substance wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>$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 w…

What game causes heat problems on the S6?

Just about any of them, or playing video, or really using the device in Gear VR mode at all. I generally started getting the cool-down-please warnings after about a half hour of use, regardless of what apps I was running.

Source: I have an S6 and Gear VR.

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

#119

Post by Sir_Substance »

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…

FYI the person you were responding to was me, and I wasn't complaining.

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

#120

Post by MBCook »

Gratsby wrote: post #115
MBCook wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

$100 investment in a Gear or a $20 investment in Cardboard has you chomping at the bit for more. It will be another generation before VR really comes to roost, but by putting this in the hands of early adopters it really opens up the imagination of developers - and it opens up their abilities to actually get to work.

Playing with a Cardboard, despite the fact I can't use my glasses with it making it an obnoxious experience, meant that I could see enough to make me want to preorder a PS VR (no PC, so it's the obvious choice).
Post reply on HN