Oculus Go Release Date Confirmed

[rgMekanic]

In more news from the annual F8 Conference, the long awaited Oculus Go standalone VR headset finally had its release date announced. Surprise, it's today! VR Focus is reporting that the Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 powered Oculus Go is launching with 1000 apps available sold through Oculus' website, as well as retail partners. If you want to grab an Oculus Go, you can get them now on Amazon for $199 for the 32GB version, and $250 for the 64GB version.

Oculus Go is the easiest way to jump into the world of virtual reality. For the first time, Oculus brings you a truly standalone VR headset-with no additional hardware, computers, or devices required. Oculus Go is portable, comfortable, and easy to use. Just put it on, switch it on, and watch a movie on a 30-foot screen, grab a front row seat at a sold out concert, play games right at the center of the action, or hang out with friends like never before.

 

[Lakados]

At those prices it beats the buy in cost for pretty much everybody else. I was going to look at refurbishing old phones to pair up with the google cardboard stuff. But this is a more viabile option.

 

[lostin3d]

Is [H[ard going to do a review of these? Curious to say the least.

 

[BSmith]

So, it is a Gear VR headset, without the phone. No thanks. I have yet to see a phone app worth my time as most seem to be only good for skimming more data from you.

Not that I have a smart phone. The Wife does and she is always having to reset it to get rid of some crappy application taking over the phone.

 

[heatlesssun]

Is [H[ard going to do a review of these? Curious to say the least.

I'm guessing not. Not even Oculus is saying that this thing will provide a top line VR experience. But the price and portability might make these things sell well and I could see them being a hot item during the holidays.

 

[lostin3d]

I'm guessing not. Not even Oculus is saying that this thing will provide a top line VR experience

That's a bummer.

 

[davethehedgehog]

I've tried watching films on my Vive, which has a similar resolution and it's a horrible experience. Resolution is absolute crap. VR's good for a lot of things but for watching films it ain't.

Plus, your head gets really sweaty and uncomfortable, which you can alleviate when playing with breaks, which would totally screw up the film experience.

 

[mord]

I am very interested in this as a training or educational tool. Cutting edge frame rate and super sharp resolution isn't required. It needs to be sufficiently powerful (low requirements), fairly reliable, cheap, simple to use and manage.

 

[zalazin]

Being that I got a 10 percent discount from Bbuy I just ordered it. Don't like I will return. I don't expect Mixed reality or PSVR performance but do hope for better than just smart phone quality.

 

[Chebsy]

So, does this only run mobile phone type VR apps ? or is there a way of using it with PC VR ?

 

[zalazin]

Strictly a stand alone unit with 2 hour battery life and 64gb of storage using qualcomm 821 processor

 

[Supercharged_Z06]

It's basically an improved Gear VR at a much,much cheaper overall cost ($200 all in for the 32gb version and $249 for 64gb). It is a completely standalone solution that also doesn't require a ~$500-700 phone to be inserted to work. I picked one up yesterday to play with. Will be returning it tomorrow though. Coming from a Rift/Vive it pales in comparison as to the overall VR experience, as it is driven by phone hardware and not via a high-end gaming PC with an uber graphics card... heh. My biggest gripe is that it is nowhere near as comfortable to wear as the Rift or Vive. (It seems to put a lot of pressure on my cheekbones after about 20 minutes of wear, even with the straps relatively loose... becomes quite uncomfortable for longer term wear and for me at least, this was the real deal breaker.) Your face may like the fit better - I'm thinking it's designed to fit smaller heads/faces better.

Pros:
"OK" VR for cheap (very cheap actually!)
Nicely designed as to appearance and quality of materials
Good/improved lenses as far as focus and sweet spot
View is nice and clear/sharp - much better than Gear VR
No real discernible SDE
Fantastic portability
Starts up quick
Doesn't seem to get too hot - good heat management
Great built-in audio tech solution that pipes/channels sound to your ears via the head strap without needing earpads/earbuds.
Built-in audio jack for those that want to just use earbuds or their own headphones
Interface is dead simple to use and no issues with use/operation as to software/setup on day one - it simply works!

Cons:
3 hours or less of battery life (although it can also be used/operated with an external battery pack or power cable hooked up)
Ergonomics suck - at least for me, but I have a big noggin. A bit front heavy and the facial interface seems a step backwards from the Rift
Very pronounced chromatic aberration around the overall periphery view which can be somewhat distracting
Sub-par overall VR experience compared to Rift/Vive. (72hz refresh compared to 90hz and rather weak graphics due to phone hardware powering it - but hey, it's all self contained)
Software when it comes to VR is fairly limited - expected as it can only handle Gear VR/phone apps as to software.
Limited 3dof head tracking - controller tracking is pretty much limited to just pointing like a laser pointer.
Nowhere near as comfortable to wear for long periods as the Rift/Vive
Requires a damn smartphone and an app to begin the setup process (forcing you to watch safety videos on your phone as part of the install process, but once setup, the phone is no longer required)

For someone that really wants a VR device for cheap that's portable or for those that want a taste of VR is about that do not own a high-end gaming PC, it's not all that bad a product really. If you do own a Rift/Vive though, I'd recommend a strong pass on this product. It's definitely a solid half-step backwards compared to a Rift/Vive and the VR software on this platform pretty much blows in comparison to what the PC VR experience brings with it.

 

[zamardii12]

It's basically an improved Gear VR at a much,much cheaper overall cost ($200 all in for the 32gb version and $249 for 64gb). It is a completely standalone solution that also doesn't require a ~$500-700 phone to be inserted to work. I picked one up yesterday to play with. Will be returning it tomorrow though. Coming from a Rift/Vive it pales in comparison as to the overall VR experience, as it is driven by phone hardware and not via a high-end gaming PC with an uber graphics card... heh. My biggest gripe is that it is nowhere near as comfortable to wear as the Rift or Vive. (It seems to put a lot of pressure on my cheekbones after about 20 minutes of wear, even with the straps relatively loose... becomes quite uncomfortable for longer term wear and for me at least, this was the real deal breaker.) Your face may like the fit better - I'm thinking it's designed to fit smaller heads/faces better.

Pros:
"OK" VR for cheap (very cheap actually!)
Nicely designed as to appearance and quality of materials
Good/improved lenses as far as focus and sweet spot
View is nice and clear/sharp - much better than Gear VR
No real discernible SDE
Fantastic portability
Starts up quick
Doesn't seem to get too hot - good heat management
Great built-in audio tech solution that pipes/channels sound to your ears via the head strap without needing earpads/earbuds.
Built-in audio jack for those that want to just use earbuds or their own headphones
Interface is dead simple to use and no issues with use/operation as to software/setup on day one - it simply works!

Cons:
3 hours or less of battery life (although it can also be used/operated with an external battery pack or power cable hooked up)
Ergonomics suck - at least for me, but I have a big noggin. A bit front heavy and the facial interface seems a step backwards from the Rift
Very pronounced chromatic aberration around the overall periphery view which can be somewhat distracting
Sub-par overall VR experience compared to Rift/Vive. (72hz refresh compared to 90hz and rather weak graphics due to phone hardware powering it - but hey, it's all self contained)
Software when it comes to VR is fairly limited - expected as it can only handle Gear VR/phone apps as to software.
Limited 3dof head tracking - controller tracking is pretty much limited to just pointing like a laser pointer.
Nowhere near as comfortable to wear for long periods as the Rift/Vive
Requires a damn smartphone and an app to begin the setup process (forcing you to watch safety videos on your phone as part of the install process, but once setup, the phone is no longer required)

For someone that really wants a VR device for cheap that's portable or for those that want a taste of VR is about that do not own a high-end gaming PC, it's not all that bad a product really. If you do own a Rift/Vive though, I'd recommend a strong pass on this product. It's definitely a solid half-step backwards compared to a Rift/Vive and the VR software on this platform pretty much blows in comparison to what the PC VR experience brings with it.

I don't like your comparisons to the Rift/Vive. It's like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Porsche. They both drive and are cars, but are really not comparable in the same way. Saying the Go isn't as good as the Vive/Rift goes completely without saying. The goal here is to compare it to other products in this price-point which you simply can not do at this time. If someone has wanted to experience the Oculus/Gear VR experience but doesn't have the compatible smartphone then this VR experience can be very good and very compelling.

Anybody who already has a Vive/Rift is not looking at this product as a replacement which again you saying "if you do own Rift/Vive though, i'd recommend a strong pass on this product" shouldn't be the case at all. You can't take your Rift/Vive with you. If you have a Rift/Vive then this is still a compelling product if for instance you travel, don't have a Gear VR compatible smartphone, and want some VR on the go. Also, needing a smartphone for the setup process shouldn't be a con... everyone has a smartphone and like you said it's only needed once to setup the device.

 

[Supercharged_Z06]

^^^^ You are reading way too much intent into my write-up. It wasn’t written to get your approval and I’m sorry if you didn’t like it, This was just my honest assessment of the “Go”, not as an alternative or replacement for a Rift/Vive, but rather in my simply wanting a portable VR headset for watching Netflix while laying down.

In this regard it failed miserably due to the image color aberration toward the edges of the screen and in its overall ergonomics as to fit for *ME*. My comparison to the Rift/Vive was primarily ergonomics as to fit and image quality. It’s definitely targeted at a different audience than PC VR and I never suggested that I thought this product was a replacement for a PC VR setup. They really should have made the facial interface for the Go more compliant/comfortable - that ultimately is my biggest gripe. Get over your butt hurt as to my comparisons.

 

[Viper87227]

I don't like your comparisons to the Rift/Vive. It's like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Porsche. They both drive and are cars, but are really not comparable in the same way. Saying the Go isn't as good as the Vive/Rift goes completely without saying. The goal here is to compare it to other products in this price-point which you simply can not do at this time. If someone has wanted to experience the Oculus/Gear VR experience but doesn't have the compatible smartphone then this VR experience can be very good and very compelling.

Anybody who already has a Vive/Rift is not looking at this product as a replacement which again you saying "if you do own Rift/Vive though, i'd recommend a strong pass on this product" shouldn't be the case at all. You can't take your Rift/Vive with you. If you have a Rift/Vive then this is still a compelling product if for instance you travel, don't have a Gear VR compatible smartphone, and want some VR on the go. Also, needing a smartphone for the setup process shouldn't be a con... everyone has a smartphone and like you said it's only needed once to setup the device.

I disagree. Your logic is that you can only compare it to similarly priced products, which don't yet exist, which means it simply cannot be compared to anything else on the market. VR is an investment that requires a lot of thought to make sure you're getting the best thing for your money, and to put out a blanket statement that you can't compare the GO to other things on the market makes no sense. It's still a VR setup, it should be compared to EVERYTHING else on the market. If someone is going to part with $200 for this, which for most of us is at least a significant enough amount of money to be making a well informed purchase, it's important to know what you are getting for $200 as well as what you AREN'T getting by saving a couple hundred bucks. If someone already has a VR capable computer, it's worth knowing if it's worth another $200 for a Rift or $300 for a Vive. If someone has a PS4, PSVR is the same price as this, it's worth knowing if that's a better option for equal money. If someone has a VR capable phone, it's worth knowing what sacrifices you make by using that and saving $100.

I wouldn't consider being able to take your VR headset with you a plus, either. Who would do that? It's a piece of technology that is meant to be used in one's home, where you can safely be isolated from the world and be aware of your surroundings. Who the hell is bringing their VR heatset for their morning bus ride, or their lunch break at work, or wherever else they might end up with idle time? I can't imagine there are many (any?) Rift/Vive owners out there disappointed that they cannot travel with it.

 

[zamardii12]

I am going to dissect your comments here a little bit because I truly think you're missing the overall point here:

I disagree. Your logic is that you can only compare it to similarly priced products, which don't yet exist, which means it simply cannot be compared to anything else on the market. VR is an investment that requires a lot of thought to make sure you're getting the best thing for your money, and to put out a blanket statement that you can't compare the GO to other things on the market makes no sense.

It is not comparable to anything other than the Gear VR which is what this is minus the required $500+ smartphone to power it. You just said "VR is an investment that requires a lot of thought to make sure you're getting the best thing for your money," and to that I say that that statement depends entirely on your expectations and here are some reasons why:

• Nobody with a Rift/Vive/PSVR is looking at this product as a replacement for their existing headsets.
• You get a Gear VR-level experience with the GO for a fraction of the cost of buying smartphone and headset to make it work.
• If you want a VR experience on the go (and don't speak for everyone by saying nobody wants that) and don't have a compatible Samsung phone that works with Gear VR, then this is a great solution.
• VR is not only limited to full head-tracking experiences. There is space in the market for a VR device like this for many people.

The Go appeals to the following demographics:

1. People who want a VR experience but don't have a compatible Samsung phone for Gear VR
2. People who don't have a powerful enough computer to run a Rift/Vive
3. People who travel and like having VR content on the GO

It's still a VR setup, it should be compared to EVERYTHING else on the market. If someone is going to part with $200 for this, which for most of us is at least a significant enough amount of money to be making a well informed purchase, it's important to know what you are getting for $200 as well as what you AREN'T getting by saving a couple hundred bucks. If someone already has a VR capable computer, it's worth knowing if it's worth another $200 for a Rift or $300 for a Vive. If someone has a PS4, PSVR is the same price as this, it's worth knowing if that's a better option for equal money. If someone has a VR capable phone, it's worth knowing what sacrifices you make by using that and saving $100.

There are all kinds of things wrong with this. Let's look at some numbers to put what you are saying here in perspective:

• (There are the latest figures I could find) As of May 2017, there were a total of 25 million Steam users who had VR-Ready GPUs installed in their systems out of around 125 million Steam users. That's a pretty size-able amount of computers that are VR-Ready. However, let's look at the main impediments to "tethered VR." The big one is cost. I bought my Vive at launch for $799. Including the PC I built at the time to support it, they totaled about $2500 together once you buy some games to try. Do I need to say more? The Vive Pro is even more ridiculous in price (I know it's not meant for regular consumers, but I am sure regular gamers are buying it too), and the regular Vive is still $600 not counting any games or hardware/space needed for it. The lack of games that interest people has improved over the last year and a half or so (from whenever Vive launched), but as a consumer who was obsessed with VR at the time I never felt like I got my money worth during the 8 months I owned the Vive. Everything I played was a tech demo at best. Steam was over-run with overpriced experiences that lasted too short. This was precisely because nobody wanted to invest in development costs for a platform that had so little users and had so many stipulations and hurdles for usage. Like I said, I am sure it's improved now but a lot of the AAA games for VR at the moment (Doom VFR, Fallout 4, and Skyrim VR) are all remakes of games people have already sunk hundreds of hours, and from a comfort standpoint I can't imagine standing and playing Fallout 4 in VR for hours. Second point is space. The true thrill of VR is room-scale without-a-doubt, but like myself I don't have the room anymore to justify for a decent VR experience. I am sure a massive amount of the 25 million people who could be playing in VR aren't doing it because of the space required unless they want to be restricted to sitting experiences and playing racing games, flying games, or 3rd person VR games.
• Of course you're right that it's worth knowing if someone who already has a VR-Ready computer should spend another $200 for a Rift, but that goes without saying. That concern of yours depends entirely on the amount of time and effort a consumer will go through before they spend their hard-earned money. But, like with my previous point there may be circumstances that prevent someone from buying a tethered VR experience.
• The PSVR is by-far the best value in my opinion for VR, and the main reason is that EVERY PS4 out there can run it. You don't need a "gaming computer" in order to run the PSVR, and the experiences and games for it are by-far the best available out there. I also think it's the most comfortable headset out of all of them and is at the right price point. the Motion controller tracking isn't as good as the Vive, but it's very serviceable and works well enough.

I wouldn't consider being able to take your VR headset with you a plus, either. Who would do that? It's a piece of technology that is meant to be used in one's home, where you can safely be isolated from the world and be aware of your surroundings. I can't imagine there are many (any?) Rift/Vive owners out there disappointed that they cannot travel with it.

• Nobody is saying that Vive/Rift owners wish they could take their headsets on the go (unless you count the folks who have bought VR backpacks like the one below) probably because they know what they have and what they were buying. The very fact that a product like a VR backpack is for sale show that there are people who want on-the-go VR.
• "VR is meant to be used in one's home." Why limit VR to a at-home experience? Here is a good example for how I have been able to share VR with folks. Load up Gear VR on my headset, and play some 360 degree videos of things like family gatherings and what-not. That may not sound amazing to you, but for old people like my great grandmother who passed, it would have been a great way for her to experience some parts of our lives that she couldn't experience because she stayed home all the time. Also, if you have a small Bluetooth controller with twin thumb-sticks, there are some truly great and compelling VR experiences available out there.

I am not sure how I would conclude all this. I could talk about VR for hours, and as someone who has owned the Rift, Vive, PSVR, and Gear VR I can say with confidence that there is room in the market for all these experiences and there are pros and cons to each. One other thing I can really appreciate about the Oculus Go is that they were able to achieve the Gear VR experience within a single $200 headset. That's mind-blowing to me, and the good thing about that is that this will drive costs down and will evolve to make VR more portable and more accessible to people who can't spend large amounts of money. I will reinvest in VR once the FOV improves, have 4K HMD displays, and they can do wireless out the box.

I wouldn't consider being able to take your VR headset with you a plus, either. Who would do that? Who the hell is bringing their VR headset for their morning bus ride, or their lunch break at work, or wherever else they might end up with idle time?

 

[Viper87227]

• Nobody with a Rift/Vive/PSVR is looking at this product as a replacement for their existing headsets.

Agreed, but I think the market for people who would buy it as an accessory to them is incredibly small. This isn't marketed for people with existing VR setups, this is marketed towards people new to VR. And for people entering into a VR setup for the first time, I think it would be silly to not at least be informed about all possible avenues, and the pros and cons of one or another.

• You get a Gear VR-level experience with the GO for a fraction of the cost of buying smartphone and headset to make it work.

Who's buying a smartphone just for a VR headset? You said it yourself a few posts up, everyone is walking around with a smart phone these days. Granted, not all of them are VR capable, but many are. And for those that aren't, I can't imagine there is really anyone considering VR who would buy a GearVR headsets and smartphone to be used only as a VR headset. You'd be more expensive than basically every other VR option doing that, and getting the worst experience. I don't view the phone as part of the cost for a Gear VR headset. Either you already have the phone, or this solution isn't relevant.

• If you want a VR experience on the go (and don't speak for everyone by saying nobody wants that) and don't have a compatible Samsung phone that works with Gear VR, then this is a great solution.

I'm not speaking for everyone, I'm speaking for the majority. If your target market is people willing to use VR on a bus, you've got a very small target market. Referring to your pictures below, there's a reason someone felt a need to take a picture. It's silly at best, and IMO a bit stupid. That's not the sort of setting I'd be willing to 100% remove myself from my surroundings. If this is your best argument for why someone would want this thing, I'm not biting.

• VR is not only limited to full head-tracking experiences. There is space in the market for a VR device like this for many people.

Kindly point out where I said there wasn't a market for this? I said I disagree with your mindset that you cannot compare this to other VR solutions, because you absolutely can, and should. Again, I'm operating under the mindset that people aren't buying this to use on the go, because I am extremely confident that the vast majority of people who'd consider this, that is not the reason why. The people considering this are doing so because it's $200 to see what the fuss about VR is. I'm not disputing in the slightest that there isn't a market for that. I'm saying that anyone in that market would be foolish to not at least consider what other options are potentially available to them. There is somewhere in the area of 80 millions PS4s out there, and I'm finding numbers suggesting over 1 billion android phones were sold in 2017, a number of which would be VR capable either via GearVR or Daydream. My point is, there is a fucking ton of people out there with the stuff to make VR happen in their home already. If you are one of those people, it's worth considering if you can either A.) Have the same experience as a Go for less money (smartphone VR), B.) Have a better experience for the same money (PSVR) or C.) Spend more money and get the best possible experience (Rift/Vive).

I'll spell it out again, just to be very clear of my point here. I'm not dismissing the potential market for the Go, I'm just saying it's unwise to not compare this device against the price and features of other VR devices if you are entering the world of VR for the first time. There are plenty of people who will do that and still find that the Go is the best solution for their needs and/or budget. There are also plenty of people who would be better served by going in a different direction, and to say you cannot compare these items is wrong. At heart, they are all still VR setups, and when you factor in many people already owning VR capable devices, that are more similarly priced than you'd like to have us believe. Your Porsche argument isn't a relevant comparison for a lot of people. If you had a Porsche that say, needed a new engine, and had to chose between a new Corolla, or a new engine for the Porsche, see how that's different than comparing a new Porsche to a new budget car? Obviously the smarter choice if you have nothing is probably the Corolla, but in this hypothetical analogies, most of us have a broken down Porsche in the garage

The Go appeals to the following demographics:

1. People who want a VR experience but don't have a compatible Samsung phone for Gear VR
2. People who don't have a powerful enough computer to run a Rift/Vive

I know I'm saying the same thing over and over here... but PS4? Any other modern android phone that works with Daydream? Or cardboard (for which there are some nice headsets)? You're focused too much on GearVR being the sole alternative to this or a PC based setup.

1. People who travel and like having VR content on the GO

Either you think this market is a lot bigger than it is, or I am severely out of touch with what people are willing to do in public... but seriously... this cannot be a target audience for a (relatively) expensive entertainment device. This sole selling point cannot make for a viable customer base. I have never in my life seen another human using a VR headset outside of their home or a public demo station in a controlled environment.

There are all kinds of things wrong with this. Let's look at some numbers to put what you are saying here in perspective:

• (There are the latest figures I could find) As of May 2017, there were a total of 25 million Steam users who had VR-Ready GPUs installed in their systems out of around 125 million Steam users. That's a pretty size-able amount of computers that are VR-Ready. However, let's look at the main impediments to "tethered VR." The big one is cost. I bought my Vive at launch for $799. Including the PC I built at the time to support it, they totaled about $2500 together once you buy some games to try. Do I need to say more? The Vive Pro is even more ridiculous in price (I know it's not meant for regular consumers, but I am sure regular gamers are buying it too), and the regular Vive is still $600 not counting any games or hardware/space needed for it. The lack of games that interest people has improved over the last year and a half or so (from whenever Vive launched), but as a consumer who was obsessed with VR at the time I never felt like I got my money worth during the 8 months I owned the Vive. Everything I played was a tech demo at best. Steam was over-run with overpriced experiences that lasted too short. This was precisely because nobody wanted to invest in development costs for a platform that had so little users and had so many stipulations and hurdles for usage. Like I said, I am sure it's improved now but a lot of the AAA games for VR at the moment (Doom VFR, Fallout 4, and Skyrim VR) are all remakes of games people have already sunk hundreds of hours, and from a comfort standpoint I can't imagine standing and playing Fallout 4 in VR for hours. Second point is space. The true thrill of VR is room-scale without-a-doubt, but like myself I don't have the room anymore to justify for a decent VR experience. I am sure a massive amount of the 25 million people who could be playing in VR aren't doing it because of the space required unless they want to be restricted to sitting experiences and playing racing games, flying games, or 3rd person VR games.
• Of course you're right that it's worth knowing if someone who already has a VR-Ready computer should spend another $200 for a Rift, but that goes without saying. That concern of yours depends entirely on the amount of time and effort a consumer will go through before they spend their hard-earned money. But, like with my previous point there may be circumstances that prevent someone from buying a tethered VR experience.
• The PSVR is by-far the best value in my opinion for VR, and the main reason is that EVERY PS4 out there can run it. You don't need a "gaming computer" in order to run the PSVR, and the experiences and games for it are by-far the best available out there. I also think it's the most comfortable headset out of all of them and is at the right price point. the Motion controller tracking isn't as good as the Vive, but it's very serviceable and works well enough.

Again, I think your missing my point. I'm not saying everyone who would want this thing should buy a Rift/Vive instead. I'm also not saying that everyone should be considering them. I'm saying that everyone who's entering the VR market needs to take a look at all the other potentially VR capable devices in their home, and if any exist, it's absolutely fair and reasonable to compare the Go against their respective VR solutions. You made the statement that no other VR solutions can be compared to the Go because nothing else hits the same price point. That's really the main point I'm disputing (although we've ended up on a VR in public tangent along the way).

• "VR is meant to be used in one's home." Why limit VR to a at-home experience? Here is a good example for how I have been able to share VR with folks. Load up Gear VR on my headset, and play some 360 degree videos of things like family gatherings and what-not. That may not sound amazing to you, but for old people like my great grandmother who passed, it would have been a great way for her to experience some parts of our lives that she couldn't experience because she stayed home all the time. Also, if you have a small Bluetooth controller with twin thumb-sticks, there are some truly great and compelling VR experiences available out there.

Why limit VR to an at home experience? It takes you completely out of your surroundings. You cannot see or (generally speaking) hear what is happening around you. People are bad enough staring at their phones instead of taking in the world around them, and VR takes it to a whole new level. I'm not going to say there are no situations where its ok, but they are so, so few, that it seems like a remarkably silly reason to end up in the pro category when choosing your VR headset. Stuck on a long flight next to someone you know where you won't be a potential burden by being unaware of your surroundings, fine, pop your headset on. On a bus/train/subway next to a stranger... hell no.