Tupac was not a hologram. He was projected on a clear, flat surface. The tech is 150 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Oculus Founder Defends $600 Price Tag
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Tupac was not a hologram. He was projected on a clear, flat surface. The tech is 150 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Not occupying the space in front of you in your living room.
Bottom line is they priced it exactly where they could. New tech isn't cheap.
That Lucky guy, although sometimes comes across as a bit of a dick.. seems pretty genuine (giving away free rifts to backers and all). So I for one believe him when he says they aren't making any money on the rift hardware.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
It should cost a lot more but we get it at cost, including the peripherals and games.
If you think it can be done cheaper while not screwing anything up, have a go.
cptnjarhead
Crossfit Fast Walk Champion Runnerup
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,669
Agreed, he does seem genuine. Also as others have said, I think they put out the best product they could without any compromise on cost. Best foot forward.
I would say in 10 years, the term display will be gone, and we will be looking at projections that are only in our field of view, spamming us or helping us get around like a virtual TomTom, then we will have to have projection free zones and such. Then we will need special glasses to not see the media being streamed at us, like voice canceling headphones, projection canceling glasses
AR Contact Lenses with wireless connection to a device (cell phone, computer, car, etc...) for data feed seems a lot more likely.
I personally like the idea of having a HUD interface between the lenses and a vehicle...lots of possibilities with that alone.
This one is worth following:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/osvr-hacker-dev-kit-hands-on/
Sounds like it could end up being promising as well.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/osvr-hacker-dev-kit-hands-on/
Sounds like it could end up being promising as well.
I had a DK1 and a Gear VR. Both feel the same to me other than I dont get nauseous with the Gear VR, which I imagine is due to tighter control of the app market (no more roller coasters) and possibly better screen refresh rate. But I never found latency or ghosting to be an issue with DK1. The problem is if you look at the Oculus forums there are a number of angry threads from people who thought the Rift was going to offer more. They feel misled by fanboys who take any upgrade in VR as some sort of newfound revolution no matter what the upgrade entails. People glow and rave about minor updates as if they are the 2nd coming, and then when regular folk try it out their reaction is "uh, whats the big deal here?". Rift enthusiasts are quite simply too enthusiastic. I'm afraid CV1 is going to be the same. Despite the fact that it has a whole slew of upgraded sensor technology, none of it really matters, it still feels very similar to existing VR products.
The only way next gen VR is going to really feel like a next gen product is with a 240 FOV wraparound screen that fully encompasses 100% of your peripheral vision even when looking out of the corner of your eyes, a resolution so high there is literally no screen door effect whatsoever, with content as vivid as what you can play on a 1440p desktop monitor (latest FPS type games) and be completely wireless so you can freeroam wherever you are. Until that it's just going to feel like tiny little incremental upgrades that arent worth the cost.
I posted this over in another Rift thread but by the sounds of it from probably hardcore gamers (would a casual gamer even know about CES?), there's a marked increase in quality from DK2 to CV1. https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3zxhgy/ces_2016_collection_thread/
I get what you're saying but technology isn't there to support 4k screens at 90 hz (or better) with a 240 FOV. Current game engines don't act right when displaying a FOV greater than 180 so there's one pretty big limitation with our current games/game engines. Additionally, HDMI and DisplayPort do not have the bandwidth necessary to pump two 4k streams across the wire, so that's another pretty big physical limitation. Could they get creative with compression, multi-link connections, or other "magic" that I am nowhere near educated enough to understand? Sure, but we aren't there yet. The VR industry needs something to get the industry kickstarted and profitable. Once companies see that it's a viable industry, the R&D will follow and the improvements will follow.
Voting with your wallet is a great concept but with the VR industry, who's trying to get started, being unwilling to settle for anything except the very best that isn't technologically feasible yet, will only result in a total failure of the industry and then we don't get any VR at all. What would you rather have, less than perfection but a road towards perfection being laid OR no hope for VR at all for at least another 10-20 years?
They've been talking about Occulus, VR and CES on very non-gaming places like CNBC and Marketplace. I think it's safe to say this goes beyond hard core gamers, but I'm not sure non-techies pay much attention either. My guess is it will take having VR demos in stores to get the average Joe interested.
Oh ya, there's tons of markets VR could prove useful in. My comments about it being most likely hardcore gamers were aimed specifically at those writing the reviews/comparisons in the reddit link I posted. Not sure non-core gamers would be attending CES and writing specific comparisons about the Vive/Rift on Reddit.
I disagree,
Both the DK1 and the Gear VR are a long way off from the consumer rift or htc vive for that matter. Gear VR doesn't even have positional tracking, nor an input solution at the moment, and runs off a smart phone not a high powered gaming PC. People that have used the Rift and Vive are very impressed with both of them and I haven't heard a single complaint regarding any more screen door effect or FOV, which was the elephant in the room relating back to the DK2, which I have owned and can attest to.
The future of VR with next gen products will be this: http://www.roadtovr.com/hands-on-smi-proves-that-foveated-rendering-is-here-and-it-really-works/. We most certainly do not need 240 wrap around fov for VR to provide a very immersive and compelling experience.
Every time I hear some dickbag talk about "poor messaging" when people are upset, I just think about the guy who really made that famous: Barack Obama.
"Poor messaging" = you fucking idiots are too stupid to understand what I said, so I have to talk to you like retarded children.
The elite are mastering passive-aggressiveness.
"Poor messaging" = you fucking idiots are too stupid to understand what I said, so I have to talk to you like retarded children.
The elite are mastering passive-aggressiveness.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
LOL! "Mission Accomplished!"
Sold out pre-orders say hi
rezerekted
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 3,052
I paid $200.00 just for Nvidia 3D Vision so don't see this price as outrageous for VR. People pay $600 or more just for a video card so what's the beef about?
Gen1 means nothing in terms of long term outlook. Video Recorders existed for decades before they became semi-mainstream and VHS/Beta were launched in the mid 70s. I can promise you I not only didn't known anyone with a VCR in the 70s, I'd never heard of them. We did have a video player in school, but it was a reel to reel.
My guess is that this will get cheaper and better over the next 2 or 3 years and that as VR (and supporting gear) gets cheaper, it will become more mainstream.
Maybe true, but it's looking awfully good for the VR industry as a whole and Rift isn't the only game in town. Oculus sold more than they expected to, that's a great start. When Vive and Sony's launch, I have no doubt those will sell well too. Gear VR and other smart phone adapter VR solutions are generating interest as well..
The long range outlook for VR is looking great.
too early to tell...remember how much potential the 3D market held back when Avatar was supposed to usher in a new era...Panasonic, Samsung etc all were going all in with 3D...now everyone seems to be leaving the market...you can't judge long term viability in the early stages of a product's life cycle
Except they were always very conservative on new 3D, I thought it was garbage from the get-go. VR gaming is completely experience-changing. It's anyone's guess if it will catch on, but it's going to have a cult following under pretty much any scenario. I can't see it going away at all. Now it could mean it only becomes as popular as people with triple monitors or steering wheels, but hey, that's still a market that's survived.
There's a difference between not understanding the message and delivering a poor message. Palmer Luckey is not a politician nor could he even pass for being one. The message that was delivered for nearly two years was a $300-$350 price range. When he backtracked, it was that it was close to $350. Unfortunately, he waited till after everyone saw the pre-order price and flipped shit to clarify that they were looking at $1,500 at one point, which means that yes, 600 IS still closer to $350. Palmer has even come out and said that the message was poorly delivered and apologized.
The difference, well hopeful difference at least, is that all those TV manufacturers refused to come together on a standard (passive vs. active), relegated 3D to the more expensive models, and included few glasses with the TV. The major VR players, Oculus, Sony, and HTC are working together on figuring out how to make VR work. There's also been 2-3 years of development lead time for software devs to figure out what works with VR and create content. TV has always been kinda bad at bringing new technology to the table without any content to match up with the new features. It took nearly a decade from the inception of HD to decent levels of broadcast content. 4K has been out for a couple years now and content is few and far between with lots of proprietary delivery methods.
Not even a valid comparison. 3d TV and movies suck. They are actually now experimenting with VR. Whether that catches on.. no idea. Watching movies is more of a social activity than gaming.
PC Gaming in VR is a game changer. Much in the way transitioning from 2D to 3D was. It's truly not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". Will it be when the costs come down? Both for the devices themself and the PC required to run them? Or when the next generation of products come along. I'd bet on the former. Because I believe the Rift, HTC Vive, and PS4 headset are all good enough.
The required PC's to run them, in my opinion, is rather modest at best. I mean really a GTX 970.. ? That generation of card launched back in Sept 2014! Next gen stuff is coming out this year, prices are going to drop. The minimum required to run VR is not going to change apparently. The product life for the rift was announced to be "between the life of a smart phone and a gaming console" (2-3 years) and (5-7 years). So 3-5 years sounds likely before the next gen stuff arrives. They needed to make this gen the best product they possibly could.
Compare $600 for a rift vs the cost of a good gaming monitor. This (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=24-236-466) is currently going for $579, on sale! I really don't understand what all the bitching is about..
^ Yep. The "VR is just another 3DTV" comparison is naive/ignorant. 3DTV was consumer electronics companies trying to push it on the public, VR is the public is pulling to get it.
I didn't have that same "Holy shit" moment trying 3DTV for the first time that I did trying the Rift for the first time. Once you actually try it and feel how your brain believes it's somewhere else - like stepping inside of a dream you are in control of waking back out of - you'll finally understand this technology.
I didn't have that same "Holy shit" moment trying 3DTV for the first time that I did trying the Rift for the first time. Once you actually try it and feel how your brain believes it's somewhere else - like stepping inside of a dream you are in control of waking back out of - you'll finally understand this technology.
Mathematician
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 12
I wouldn't pay over 100.00 for it. Its a novelty item at best, certainly nothing you need to operate a computer like a monitor is. As competition increases and R&D has been paid back by early Guinea pigs, err adopters, prices will fall to what its really worth. They are too hot and cumbersome to use more than 1/2 an hour at a time. Its worse than wearing 3D glasses.
It isn't that the price will fall to what it is really worth. it is that the technology will get cheaper. When SSD first came out they were very expensive, but then as more and more people bought them and the technology improved and got cheaper they got cheaper. When 4K TVs first came out they were high priced then over time again the tech became lower priced and the cost of the tvs came down.
I actually like how somebody put it last week, the problem is that people are spoiled by cell phones being subsidized by carriers. Look at the cost of a 6 inch cell phone when you are paying for it out of pocket. It will run you a pretty penny.
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-iPhone-Factory-Unlocked-Smartphone/dp/B00NQGOO4I
there is an example. Over $800 for a iPhone 6S. So it makes sense that a device that has 2 HD screens, and electronics will be $600 to start with given that it is new tech and also because that is pretty much on par or cheaper than what a cell phone would run you.
So the price is right for what you get. That doesn't mean that it is for everyone. Just like a $2000 TV isn't for everyone or a $1000 home sound system isn't for everyone.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
you guys are all letting your personal feelings about VR cloud your judgements by admitting that 3D was never your thing...it was supposed to be the next big technology starting back in 2009...3D is just an earlier version of VR...I was never all that hyped about 3D but I do remember being excited that they bundled an exclusive copy of Avatar 3D back when I bought my Panasonic plasma television...and 3D actually looked better at home then in the theater in my opinion...the effects were more pronounced...I still preferred watching a movie in 2D over 3D but there were some really cool demo 3D moments in movies such as Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole etc
3D was never about pop-out gimmicks but instead all about depth, delivering a better experience then earlier versions of 3D...VR is just the next evolution in 3D...and what does 'watching movies is more of a social activity then gaming' mean?...movies are more important in the entertainment world then games...what was the last game then made over $1 billion globally like The Force Awakens?
the comparisons are valid and only a fanboy can't see it...you wear a clunky device on your head for both VR and 3D...and the glasses were one of the main reasons that 3D failed, so now they are making an even clunkier device to totally block out your vision and make it near impossible to multi-task or do anything other then 'game' and you think it will be this huge success?...I want VR to succeed but I don't see it doing so in it's current form...it's 3D all over again minus the huge boom of the movie/theater experience...Oculus vs Vive also looks like it might divide and hurt the VR community rather then unite them
lol at the 'manufacturers were pushing 3D on the public while VR is what the world is clamoring for' comment LOL...yeah sure you keep telling yourself that...again more fanboy talk that lacks any unbiased facts...3D has lost momentum and traction but is still a major element of most major movies in 2016...let's see VR's numbers 5 years from now
3D was never about pop-out gimmicks but instead all about depth, delivering a better experience then earlier versions of 3D...VR is just the next evolution in 3D...and what does 'watching movies is more of a social activity then gaming' mean?...movies are more important in the entertainment world then games...what was the last game then made over $1 billion globally like The Force Awakens?
the comparisons are valid and only a fanboy can't see it...you wear a clunky device on your head for both VR and 3D...and the glasses were one of the main reasons that 3D failed, so now they are making an even clunkier device to totally block out your vision and make it near impossible to multi-task or do anything other then 'game' and you think it will be this huge success?...I want VR to succeed but I don't see it doing so in it's current form...it's 3D all over again minus the huge boom of the movie/theater experience...Oculus vs Vive also looks like it might divide and hurt the VR community rather then unite them
lol at the 'manufacturers were pushing 3D on the public while VR is what the world is clamoring for' comment LOL...yeah sure you keep telling yourself that...again more fanboy talk that lacks any unbiased facts...3D has lost momentum and traction but is still a major element of most major movies in 2016...let's see VR's numbers 5 years from now
The other problem with a $600 price tag is that you expect a $600 experience. VR games still tend to err on the side of tinker toys. "Experiences" I believe are still considered the most downloaded, and those dont require any interaction at all, you're just along for the ride. The few games that exist have simplified controls to make it easier to execute in VR land. You see the problem with VR is that it expects to pull us into the game, however game mechanics are far too complex to execute in the real world, hence the reason it is all fantasy.
A real Navy Seal cannot perform the shenanigans you see in BF4, because BF4 is pure fantasy. Yet now you are trying to bridge the gap and make people feel like they are immersed in the world of BF4 by bringing it to reality. It just doesnt mix. You're not going to be able to play a game like BF4 or any FPS for that matter effectively in VR. It sort of harks back to the gamepad vs keyboard/mouse argument. One is simply superior to the other.
Conclusion? VR games need to be custom tailored for a VR experience, to enable us to do things that feel natural in real life so that the immersion fits. You think anyone wearing the Vive with front facing camera is going to be dolphin diving and rolling around on the floor while they battle it out in some sim? No, they're just going to stand there and maybe walk back and forth within a 5 foot radius. Well what kind of game is going to allow for that? Nothing that currently exists, therefore new games will have to be custom tailored for these features, most of which will probably be thrown in as an after thought if at all.
Without AAA titles to sell VR properly, all that is left is what we have seen so far. Little goofy kiddy games and simulations, great for a VR experience but certainly not at a $600 pricetag. The Gear VR was genius because it was a $100 addon to a device you already had. Even though it's technically a $600-$700 total system investment, you can write off the phone since all super phones are priced in this range and people are expected to just have phones. The games are $2-$10 on average and their quality reflects this price point. They are designed exclusively for VR and thus they serve their purpose well.
But games like Half Life and TF2? With a $1500 PC and $600 VR upgrade in a world that is totally unfit for VR? Not gonna happen. People wont pay it, and those that do will revert back to their monitors for proper gameplay since these games just dont translate well to VR. Any future titles designed just for VR wont feel worth the investment.
A real Navy Seal cannot perform the shenanigans you see in BF4, because BF4 is pure fantasy. Yet now you are trying to bridge the gap and make people feel like they are immersed in the world of BF4 by bringing it to reality. It just doesnt mix. You're not going to be able to play a game like BF4 or any FPS for that matter effectively in VR. It sort of harks back to the gamepad vs keyboard/mouse argument. One is simply superior to the other.
Conclusion? VR games need to be custom tailored for a VR experience, to enable us to do things that feel natural in real life so that the immersion fits. You think anyone wearing the Vive with front facing camera is going to be dolphin diving and rolling around on the floor while they battle it out in some sim? No, they're just going to stand there and maybe walk back and forth within a 5 foot radius. Well what kind of game is going to allow for that? Nothing that currently exists, therefore new games will have to be custom tailored for these features, most of which will probably be thrown in as an after thought if at all.
Without AAA titles to sell VR properly, all that is left is what we have seen so far. Little goofy kiddy games and simulations, great for a VR experience but certainly not at a $600 pricetag. The Gear VR was genius because it was a $100 addon to a device you already had. Even though it's technically a $600-$700 total system investment, you can write off the phone since all super phones are priced in this range and people are expected to just have phones. The games are $2-$10 on average and their quality reflects this price point. They are designed exclusively for VR and thus they serve their purpose well.
But games like Half Life and TF2? With a $1500 PC and $600 VR upgrade in a world that is totally unfit for VR? Not gonna happen. People wont pay it, and those that do will revert back to their monitors for proper gameplay since these games just dont translate well to VR. Any future titles designed just for VR wont feel worth the investment.
Sure, people won't want to play competetive games like TF2, BF4 or CS:GO; but I can easily see myself playing a single player game like Crysis with the Rift.
I just wonder how many units do they need to sell at that price point. I'm personally waiting until they come out with a 4k version and I can demo it in a store before I ever buy one.
I don't think $600 is bad if it actually delivers on the vr experience.
I don't think $600 is bad if it actually delivers on the vr experience.
cptnjarhead
Crossfit Fast Walk Champion Runnerup
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,669
So, i see the ps4 VR has an external processing unit to run it. Would be nice if Oculus did the same thing for people who do not have a high end pc. Sure its easy enough to build or upgrade a system, but not for the majority of PC users. Maybe even a portable unit with a battery. I'm waiting to see what happens when DX12 games start to come out before i consider my upgrade path. Future looks good for PC gamers. I am excited
agreed...exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread...games like Dark Souls, Witcher 3 with lots of fluid movement is not going to work in VR...swinging your sword around is not going to translate to VR (or translate well)...VR is going to excel in simple interactive type of games
I compare VR to a more advanced version of Kinect...I used Kinect at my friends house to play some bowling, golf etc and it was fine in those type of games...I think VR will have a similar narrow focus best suited for flight, racing and some sports and some specialty interactive games
You still don't get it. 3D sucked, it's always sucked. It sucked back when they tried before, and it still sucked when they launched it again in 2009. The only reason it was supposed to be the next great thing was because that is what Hollywood and TV manufacturers were trying to convince people of so they can sell them over priced TV's. Most people saw it for what it was, a gimmick, and didn't fall for it. I think the fact that you were disappointed by 3d clouds your judgement on just how good VR is and where it can go.
Watching movies being a more social activity means most of us watch movies with a significant other, or your family, with popcorn and shit ya know ? PC Gamers game in single player games or online with friends, wearing a headset won't be a limitation.
VR on the other hand, does not suck. It is light years beyond simple 3d glasses with a TV.
I'm not saying the Rift or Vive is going to be mainstream in the true sense of mainstream. PC Gaming has always been a bit of a niche market. That will be Gear VR or other smartphone adapters. But these VR headsets for PC's and possibly consoles, are here to stay.
Why not? What developers have found is that those types of games and experiences work very well in 3rd person for VR. Such as Edge of Nowhere: http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/12/87...n-insomniac-ted-price-edge-of-nowhere-chronos
Give it time, you'll see..
Nope, I am well aware of my stance and can still be objective. There are a lot of things wrong with VR but it's definitely not like 3D, my son loves going to see 3D movies so I've seen quite a few and some of them are really good effects wise. With that said, even the simple games blow away the most amazing 3D movies.
I'll leave this right here (~$78 billion over 11 games): http://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-top-grossing-video-games-of-all-time-2015-8
Granted, wearing a giant thing on your head isn't the most glamorous but its obvious you have never even tried the technology. There's Virtual Desk which allows me to use my desktop applications all the same. Sure, I am one of the relative few that can type without looking at the keyboard 99% of the time but it's still possible. You should also look around the web and see what even Palmer Luckey says about VR. There's multiple industries who have already bought Rift DKs because they know how transformative it can be for them. Palmer Luckey has stated that while gaming will be the initial penetration for VR, it isn't expected to be the sole industry or even the largest industry user of VR. Hell, imagine a high school/college class that dons a VR headset and a biology teacher can give a better presentation of the human body.
Yes, the public wanted VR. We had some garage dweller named Palmer Luckey whose passion for HMDs made him start a kickstarter that hit over 9,500 individual donors totaling over $2.4 million. 3D has had zero initiatives like this and it WAS the entertainment industry/tv manufacturers who said, "Lets try 3D again." As far as I know, nobody went to them and asked them to develop the tech.
I'd argue the best experience I've had in VR thus far is from the Gear VR playing Gunjack. I've got a DK2 but because of its technical limitations I was never able to really get lost in it. In Gunjack, I remember looking around the cockpit and forgetting it was a game until I leaned in and my viewpoint didn't change. The amount of work and detail put into the cockpit is excellent. DK2 and obviously the Vive will both have spatial tracking. I've played BF4 in the DK2, it works fine...the controls just suck because of no freelook. You're right though, some games just aren't gonna work well...I couldn't imagine playing something like Quake 3. The hope though, is like with most technologies that stick around, economics takes over and cost to manufacture will come down. We already know the system requirements will become more attainable with the next release (3-5 years) because GPUs will be a lot more powerful.
The reason for the PSVR breakout box is because the GPU isn't powerful enough. The Rift and Vive are entering a market that is already saturated with the same kind of device called a GPU
The PS4 unit will have an external processing unit because the console isn't powerful enough to run it alone.
If the Rift were to have one, that would drive the price up even further. Also it probably wouldn't be up-gradable. You're PC on the other hand, is.
I share your excitement! I'm also excited for upcoming GPU's from nVidia and AMD. 16nm FinFet, HBM2 and all that..
You guys see that listing on Amazon for the $800 Sony headset before it was pulled, and claimed to be a mistake by Sony? Ya.. mistake huh.
Also, the HTC Vive won't be cheap either. I believe they wen't on record to say "We think people will be satisfied with their investment".
Mathematician
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 12
As was mentioned even if it were a great platform, not that it is, but even if it was, it lacks any good content that will make it worth putting the silly thing on your head for any length of time. Coupled with the low red aspect and the trouble finding keys on a keyboard while wearing it means controls will always be the shortcoming of it. It will, like 3d have a niche market but its too limited for many, myself included. I tried a rift dk and it was a badly executed joke with bad resolution of about 400 effective total. Looks bad, feels uncomfortable, and is too limited in control inputs and functionality to be worthwhile to me. Give me KB&mouse and a 4k 40" screen with a decent system running it over vr any day. Its a far better experience.
More bullshit statements from the uninformed. These things haven't even launched yet, full games list hasn't been announced. The backing received from the industry has been massive. Inputs won't be mouse and keyboard, they have specialized controllers. The limitations of the DK2 were why it wasn't the retail product and why they put so much more tech into the CV1.
4K 40" vs VR, I've tried both. VR is better.
Why limit myself though. I'll have both.