Oculus Rift Review: VR’s Rising Star Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream
wsj.com
wsj.com
I already got the sense that the author really hadn't done much research before writing the piece, but that statement is very telling. The key benefits of a rift over a gear vr are in it's motion capture, the processing power made available to it by the attached computer and not being time restricted by limited battery life, and I would expect a critic to know that.
As it stands I respect the dudes view, and it'll be one shared by a lot of non-gamers, but this is basically a lets-play, not a critical review.
The original Gear VR ("Innovator edition") could not be charged while used though if I remember correctly.
I own a DK2 and for many concrete reasons disagree with the author, it is not a novelty. Phone-based stuff is most certainly a novelty.
In use, this makes a huge difference if you're looking to put someone in a virtual environment. It's not even restricted to gaming applications. All of the software I've tried on my Rift dev unit and someone else's Gear made this abundantly clear to me. Not being able to lean forward/back/around things takes away a huge part of the "immersion" factor leaving you with more of a souped-up 3d screen.
In terms of cost, for the Gear, don't you also need one of a few specific, expensive Samsung phones? I admit I haven't followed it as much lately so I don't know if they are selling something more affordable with the phone-stuff integrated or allowing the use of other phones. When I looked last, you needed a ~$700 phone plus the Gear. Not too big a price difference between $800 for phone+Gear and $1000 for a good video card+Rift. Personally, when I'm even considering something this expensive, new, and unnecessary, $800+ versus $1000 isn't a huge difference since I'm already spending a lot on something I don't really need.
The other huge thing I've noticed is that all of the best new and in-development VR stuff just isn't gonna be something you can run on a phone or a Playstation. It's gonna be beta software (if you're lucky) and require a powerful, flexible platform like a computer. Down the line it will even out but right now, none of the really impressive stuff I've seen for VR will run on Gear and I doubt it will be in the Sony Playstation store anytime soon. That same console-level polish and ease comes with a flip-side: no access to anything that isn't seamless or marketable just yet.
...maybe the specs wouldn't be so goddamn high if they actually let us do dev work against a lower-level interface. Forcing us to deal with massive frameworks like Unity and Unreal might well be the cause of spec creep. :(
EDIT:
And Meta can go eat a bag of rocks--no public docs on their API, and they seem to be wed to Unity...which can really screw up certain types of AR work they'd otherwise be perfect for.
Oculus, at least, offered a native SDK for the brave and foolish.
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.
The Gear VR could be enhanced with better tracking, and as new phones come out it will get better processing power. I think Fowler is right.
VR is very new. Let's say your a consumer who wants to play with it. What's a better investment? $2200 in a PC and a Rift, or $100 that clips on your phone (assuming you're on Samsung)?
If you just want to try it for now, play around a bit? The Gear is very compelling.
(I'd love one, but I use an iPhone. I've got a PS VR on order though.)
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 without heat problems on the S7. S7's are generally quoted at $700, making the package price $800.
Rough figures, I know, but yours are well out of whack.
[1] http://www.techtimes.com/articles/134240/20160217/oculus-rea...
Source: I have an S6 and Gear VR.
I'm assuming you're not buying the phone but that you already have one. People still get them with subsidies too.
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.
For people who aren't already committed to VR, I think Fowler is right that the Rift is way too much at this point.
Give it time.
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 with Samsung phones, the Rift is aimed at PC gamers with gaming PCs. Sure, some people will buy a slightly better rig or upgrade sooner than they would have otherwise, but fundamentally it's targeting people who are going to own a gaming computer anyway.
I'd guess that the people buying a Rift + PC bundle as their first PC gaming setup will be doing it after trying one on in person to evaluate it. It'll happen, but it'll be a slower push driven by word of mouth.
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.
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.
On the other hand, for those that have a recent gaming PC an Oculus Rift is both cheaper and technologically better. So what?
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 (we all know the Vive and Rift and even PS VR will do better than the Gear).
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 the expected future. If from beginning on he had tried a product of satisfactory quality he would perhaps have liked VR.
TLDR: Trying out a cheaper, but inferior product can be worse than trying no product.
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.
Why even compare with Gear VR if you're trying to illustrate how cheap this solution is? Why not simply talk about Cardboard -- which you can get literally for $1/free if you know the tricks, or the rest of the cheapo plastic VR sets you can buy for around $10-$20?
I'm guessing there's a middle ground here. We already have the Solun Q shipping shortly, which uses a low power AMD CPU/GPU combo that can deliver graphics that land somewhere between what a phone and a console can do. All of it running on battery power with no wires.
Its an interesting form factor at the very least. I imagine the first gen of all these products will be pretty poor, but being attached to a $1500 PC is going to be the first problem solved in this space. Its too much of a hassle and cost. Being able to just buy a VR set that you turn on and put on your head is going to be a big win. People won't be intimidated by this and will prefer an all-in-one machine. It'll need to ship with motion controls and somehow get this all to work without a lighthouse/usb camera system.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/04/oculuss-technology-guru-jo...
It will be another generation before VR really comes to roost, but by putting this in the hands of early adopters it really opens up the imagination of developers - and it opens up their abilities to actually get to work.
The whole argument behind why websites like wsj are allegedly valuable and thus worth un-adblocking or paying 10c an article for or whatever is the trendy solution now is that they're supposed to be offering a higher standard of information than whatever reddit thinks.
If the guy writing the article knows so little about the topic he cannot even make factually correct comparisons between similar but distinct products, I might as well stick to reddits opinion, no?
I don't see what's factually incorrect in this article. The author says that the tether is kind of a pain, and the fact that the Gear is tether-free makes it more compelling (even though it's weaker in other aspects). That's opinion -- useful opinion! The basic facts (tethered versus untethered) seem correct.
Gaming PC's used to be ~2,000$, this is 600 + 950PC = 1550$. https://www.oculus.com/en-us/oculus-ready-pcs/ Which is not free but hardly going to break most people. Don't forget this is just a mid-range gaming PC which many people are going to get anyway which drops this down to the cost of a high end cellphone.
PS: IMO, WoW was mainstream as a PC only MMO with a few million subscribers in the US.
Sure, a mid to low end PC could play WoW in 2004, but it only broke 2.5 million subscribers in late 2005. http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/wow-sub... And 10m in 2008.
Give it 4 years and a GTX 970 will be a very low end graphics card.
In 2004, Steam had no noteworthy buzz and its only purpose was Half-Life 2 DRM.
The important thing is with the number of Steam Users each 1% is more than 1 million people. Thus < 50% can still be a lot of people. (4.39% own a 970 GTX GPU, 0.92% own a 980 GTX GPU, 0.72% own a GTX 980 Ti ~= 7.5 million people who don't need to upgrade graphics card, now add ATI and SLI.)
PS: Active Steam account = bought something from steam AND logged on in the last 2 weeks. Which IMO is a much higher hurdle than most website tracking. And clearly not all gaming PC's are on Steam.
It's not low end, it's mid-range. HD at 60fps (often higher) on med-high settings on everything but the very most recent games (without MSAA).
Again, you'll probably need to wait more than 4 years for a high-end card to become "very low end". I'd give it five or six years.
Granted, in terms of hardware people are currently using the GTX 660 might still be mid range.
Plug and play, games work great because they're designed for the system.
On the other hand with the Rift and the Vive you need a PC which has to be up to spec, the hardware is more expensive, etc.
The real question IMO, is if you own both which do you add VR to?
The PS VR is cheaper and I already keep that equipment setup. I don't need to worry about specs/etc. Plug and play. Plus the PS VR is cheaper.
For me I'd go with PS VR and see how that goes. If I really liked it then I might buy a Vive for my (we'll pretend I own a) gaming PC. I could sell the PS VR to offset the cost.
Don't own a console? Already hard-core into PC? Then just going straight to Vive/Rift makes plenty of sense if you're willing to buy in.
You can get a reliable used car for ~12k. Look at how many people spend 2+K more than that.
AKA if you buy a car for 20k vs 12k the extra 8k was not needed.
Where is this number coming from? Even the people I know interested in VR aren't exactly leaping to buy this first generation, and that's exactly what the review should (and does) reveal—you should continue waiting unless you want to deal with typical early adopter issues.
The comparison to VR is apt. It really is a game-changing technology.
This ISN'T the future - but it's changed the game - we now how a different vision for what the future will be.
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.
The target market for this thing already has a gaming machine. It would be like releasing a really awesome gaming keyboard for $100, and having it characterized as costing $1500 since it implies the use of a powerful PC.
Is this bugging anyone else?
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.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/28/oculus-rift-is-built-...
Sort of like Second Life. Second Life has supported the Oculus Rift since late 2014. Nobody cares.[2]
I can see using one for FPS games, but beyond that, it's not that compelling. There's still no killer VR app.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971 [2] http://www.roadtovr.com/second-life-now-official-oculus-rift...
I think one of the most relevant parallells - for now, at this stage of development - is with a projetor. Relatively high cost of entry, takes effort and space for setup, and for basic day-to-day entertainment, kind of overkill. Sure it's great from time to time to take a projector and game rig outside and play Forza on a two-car garage door with a screen so big landing planes can probably see it, no doubt. It's actually nice to have one when other people are over, so it's a more engaging device, unlike putting on a headset.
Honestly I think about the time VR will be considered 'mainstream' is when the more customary (and accessible) entertainment forms start generating in-demand content. Think major motion picture studios, TV networks, and concert-type footage (Rolling Stones in Cuba probably in development as I type this). Or, as one more comparison, once the VR platform is as dynamic and simple as the iPhone environment (games, communication, media) then more people will adopt in turn and the market will diversify in beneficial ways (serious vs. casual gamers, etc).
I'm really excited to see what the 'traditional' creative platforms like music and storytelling are going to do in the environment over time.
This sentence is pretty emblematic of the product the author of this article was expecting vs the Rift that Oculus pitched in their kickstarter video.
I also find it's boring to be around people who are Google Searching, or using Facebook.
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!"
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/28/oculus-rift-is-built-...
It, too, is negative.
The Big Question we all have right now is precisely this: will VR enter mainstream or will it be a gimmick? Oculus is supposed to be leading that charge. If they can't break into some huge number of homes, then the VR ecosystem will die before it gets started. Goodbye JauntVR, etc.
But just because Wall Street Journal, that person is somewhat a "voice that matters" even though he's just some random columnist, with no experience in the domain and nothing to back it up but his personal opinion and factoids. How annoying that must be.
All is according to plan.
Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but that's why you often need external pragmatic perspective, like from the WSJ.
Consider the price of the HP LaserJet III. It came out around 1990, and I remember a conversation with a salesperson that said that the price had already come down so much since the HP LaserJet I that it probably wouldn't ever get much cheaper. It was a complex machine, motors, belts, gears, laser, etc., and in today's dollars it cost about $4400. High quality printers today are everywhere and can cost under $100. It's interesting to consider where VR will be in a decade or two.
It seems like an important development; one I've been waiting for since 1977. I was in a graduate-school computer graphics course and I described an idea that I had for a helmet that would capture motion and position of one's head and through two small CRTs present a rendered 3D virtual view. The rest of the class (and the professor) seemed skeptical, but I've always remembered that feeling about VR like there was an idea that was eventually coming.
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.
Problem 1: Check out the Virtuix Omni, as well as software-only solutions.
Problem 2: See foveated rendering.
and unfortunately i think will only start to be addressed when the number of people who spend more time with the device increases,
the headset is one size fits all
the center of the split screen, the stationary lenses, and i'm assuming the stereo render all presume everyone's eyes are the same distance apart and perfectly level
which is simply untrue, and without configurable variables those minute discrepancies will result in peoples' brains working much harder to compensate
my eyes went cross for an hour after taking off the headset the last time i ever used my dk2, i wonder if i will be reading someone else's similar story in the near future
http://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-says-consumer-rift-has-ipd-ad...
i commend the oculus team for addressing the issue for the consumer product
that said, i think digital stereoscopy is the wrong direction for vision manipulation
there are many minute issues similar to ipd that need to be addressed, an engineering analogue to the curse of dimensionality
if one looks at the history of stereoscopic viewers it is clear they failed to usurp their two dimensional counterparts and i think it of interest to question why that may be
The consumer rift, however, has a IPD adjustment knob on it for exactly this reason. In playing with the prototypes they had at PAX last August, the IPD was much, much less of an issue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4cagl1/giant_bomb_liv...