Hacker News Reader

Comment by MBCook | Hacker News Reader

I've been following VR for the last year or so. There is no question that the Rift has better specs and can do better graphics than the Gear.

But I've read more than a few people in the VR space (game journalists, developers) say that there is something special about the Gear because there is no cable. There's nothing you have to keep conscious of so you don't trip over it or feel it on your back breaking immersion.

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.)

View on HN

>$2200 in a PC and a Rift, or $100 that clips on your phone (assuming you're on Samsung)?

Your figures are a little off. A rift is (all following figures in USD) $599, and a computer that will support it is generally quoted at $950, making it's package price $1550. You can buy bundles that include a Rift and an Oculus ready PC for $1499[1].

The gear VR only works with very recent phones, and only works on all games 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...

What game causes heat problems on the S6?

https://forums.oculus.com/community/discussion/27568/consume...

https://www.reddit.com/r/GearVR/comments/3vlsad/is_the_overh...

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

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

Source: I have an S6 and Gear VR.

I haven't had these problems.

I was under the impression you needed a $1500 PC. So I'll give you that.

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.

> 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.

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.

> the Gear is aimed at the general public with Samsung phones, the Rift is aimed at PC gamers with gaming PCs

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.

> And the article is aimed at the general public, not gamers. That's why there is nothing wrong with Fowler's analysis.

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.

> The point is that for someone who wants to dip their toes and had a recent Samsung phone the Gear is DRASTICALLY cheaper.

On the other hand, for those that have a recent gaming PC an Oculus Rift is both cheaper and technologically better. So what?

It's a WSJ article, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of their readership doesn't have a recent gaming PC, or at least the number is significantly less than those with a recent Samsung phone.

All I was doing was defending Fowler's point that the Gear VR might be a better option for people wanting to dip their toes in for now without spending big $$$. Not the 'I have hundreds of dollars and a good computer' case (we all know the Vive and Rift and even PS VR will do better than the Gear).

> All I was doing was defending Fowler's point that the Gear VR might be a better option for people wanting to dip their toes in for now without spending big $$$.

Perhaps even then is not a good idea after all. Consider the option that some Joe Average will try out Gear VR on his Samsung mobile phone and is dissatisfied with the quality (say, because it causes nausea on him). So he will avoid trying out VR again in 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.

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

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

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

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

> The point is that for someone who wants to dip their toes and had a recent Samsung phone the Gear is DRASTICALLY cheaper.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> $2200 in a PC and a Rift, or $100 that clips on your phone (assuming you're on Samsung)?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com