Live data from Hacker News

Oculus Rift S

oculus.com

201–210 of 272 posts

Re: Oculus Rift S

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I tried the Quest recently and it felt consumer-ready in a way none of the other systems I've tried so far did. Mostly due to the freedom to move without the cable, increased resolution, and better lenses (the price doesn't hurt either). That's coming out in a few months though, and it certainly addresses the cost point. Is the main thing you think will take 5+ years content? Trying the Quest I couldn't help but…

The first problem is the technology just isn't good enough yet - it literally makes people sick. Higher resolution, faster frame rates, and better tracking can help with this. The second problem is it's too expensive. Once there is enough demand to scale the technology better, costs can come down. And costs for better screens and chips will come down in time on their own anyway. The third problem is a lack of content…

It's not too surprising that sales are bad, the V1 hardware is pretty terrible in various ways, and the cost all in is ~$1400 for a PC system (cheaper for PlayStation but not that cheap). At least management at Facebook and Valve have been very clear that their expectations for V1 were not high.

If you look at tablet PCs, Microsoft didn't capture much market share with early $1000+ systems with non-touch based software, but there was still room for the iPad to come in at a lower price and be a successful product.

I think the difference between a (not-terrible) mobile system like the Quest at $400 and existing PC based systems is at least as stark. BTW I didn't hear of anyone getting motion sick, but neither of the Quest demos had any artificial movement, and people weren't using it for hours.

Of course there still needs to be content with some sort of appeal. That's pretty subjective. I liked the tennis demo I had, the lack of a cable made quite a big difference and the lenses aren't nearly as fussy to get a clear picture. I'm not a big gamer but I like being active IRL and playing table tennis etc. I don't know how big a market that is. But I could see myself buying one at $400, not as a developer, if it had a variety of that sort of stuff. None of the other systems I've tried get remotely close to that, in terms cost/inconvenience for what you get.

I'm also curious about movie watching. I wouldn't use existing systems for it, but a higher-res mobile system with better lenses (and hopefully a native Netflix app)? I'm very curious to see if it's a practical thing yet. People watch lots of shows on their phone, it doesn't seem unthinkable that VR could have some appeal for that.

If they have decent content, I think they will probably move more units than VR systems have to date. But to think about the Wii again, even though it was successful as a device it still didn't end up having a major long-term impact...

I don't think just the numbers matter in early stage hardware while there are still extreme qualitative differences. You see companies that focused on cardboard/GearVR based on that sort of reasoning, even though that had an even less likely future as a platform than fully-tracked systems. The Palm Treo wasn't a mass market product, but that hardly doomed smartphones.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#202
post #47

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about rui…

The move to casual is risky if it alienates the current user-base of gamers. However, it is my understanding that the number of VR gamers isn’t high enough to drive self-sustaining profits for VR developers. There’s a case to be made that a platform like VR can’t be sustained by gaming. That VR needs a killer business application. If that is true, then the Quest isn’t equipped to handle business use-cases (battery-li…

VR is already selling quite strongly to firms who use it for various kinds of training. One good indication of this is the strong market of backpack PCs https://www.roadtovr.com/vr-backpack-pc-at-a-glance/ despite the face that the backpack PC seems to have almost no adoption among home VR users. It also underlines the fact that current workplace VR users aren't particularly price-sensitive. It futher seems unlikely that they're usually all that bothered about sensor setup, though maybe some value or would value the wide play area that markerless inside-out tracking affords.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#203
post #47

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about rui…

I think Vive now has the enthusiast market wrapped up nicely, so I can understand why Occulus might want to target a low end market. Especially as it might prove to be larger. But it's really still early days for VR, much higher specs required than a typical mid range consumer PC, so it's hard to say where things will ultimately land.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#204
post #47

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about rui…

How is this different from /r/gaming thinking that the only challenge in building anything is turning a dial, and if it's not perfect, then it's because you're incompetent for not simply turning the dial more.

Excellent description

Re: Oculus Rift S

#205
Hmm, I have a hard time understanding what advantage these all in one devices have over the various VR lens devices for random phones.

That said i'm not really impressed with the basic rift device I have. Mostly because the core software seems like garbage. The first blue screens I've seen in over a decade were caused by it. Then there are all the non fatal problems like the fact that the software apparently wasn't tested on machines that go into standby regularly. Then there are the weird USB discovery issues the hardware/software has (the software wants everything plugged into different controller ports but can't seem to figure out the USB topology correctly 1/2 the time, meaning sometimes it works then it decides not to work unless the machine is rebooted/etc).

I would say it generally works better than some of the stuff I used in the 90's but the resolution is strangely lacking given the price of the thing and other devices on the market.

So that said, the core problem of VR making people nauseous definitely hasn't been solved with the basic rift. Pretty much everyone I've demoed it to gets sick on games/demos which involve first person perspective. OTOH, there are some pretty cool 3rd person games (witchblood, moss, etc).

Re: Oculus Rift S

#206
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. So basically every company in the world that prefers marketshare to niche. Theres some nice exceptions like pinboard.in, but for the most part, everyone is willing to sell out to Walmart hoping for dominance.

Nvidia definitely hasn't forgotten about super hardcore gamers, even if people buying 2080 Ti's are a tiny minority.

No but Nvidia still has a diversified customer base too. High end enthusiast gamers are only one component. Occulus seems to be trying to diversify a bit too.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#207
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, HP's new version of the Reverb jumped to a 2160x2160 per-eye resolution. If Pimax can get their shit together, the 4K resolution and ridiculous FOV is promising. I think the ultimate problem is that the higher-end market isn't willing to spend what it would require to build a sufficiently-good headset right now, nor are there many home gaming computers that can realistically pump 8+K low latency, high FPS graph…

The market for a high end HMD is pretty much anyone that already has no problem spending $1,000 on a video card. That is a lot of us but it isn't big enough for a company like Facebook or HTC. My fear is pushing crap at $500 instead of gold at $900 will leave a stigma on VR that will take another decade or more to wash off. The reverb actually looks great but the tracking is a flop.

I think of the kid factor. My kids can't tell the difference between the gear VR, PSVR, and high end setup. Or they just don't care. All they want are fun games. That leaves the gear VR for things like rollercoaster sims and 360 pov video of the same, and PSVR for Beat Saber and Job Simulator. No interest in the high end gold level setups

Re: Oculus Rift S

#209
I’m imagining a time when they can project enough resolution into your retina that can mimic a 4K TV at a distance constantly, that would be one of the killer apps

Re: Oculus Rift S

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I tried the Quest recently and it felt consumer-ready in a way none of the other systems I've tried so far did. Mostly due to the freedom to move without the cable, increased resolution, and better lenses (the price doesn't hurt either). That's coming out in a few months though, and it certainly addresses the cost point. Is the main thing you think will take 5+ years content? Trying the Quest I couldn't help but…

The first problem is the technology just isn't good enough yet - it literally makes people sick. Higher resolution, faster frame rates, and better tracking can help with this. The second problem is it's too expensive. Once there is enough demand to scale the technology better, costs can come down. And costs for better screens and chips will come down in time on their own anyway. The third problem is a lack of content…

To be honest though, I'm surprised the VR porn industry hasn't really taken off. Though that's hardly the driver of high end rigs, but rather more towards something lower end.
Post reply on HN