Can Oculus compete with Valve on the PC platform?

[my3dscene]

let's see the facts"
1 - At the beginning, Oculus, on Palmer's hands, was going to be the best VR experience on PC platforms, and that is why Valve supported Oculus, it was going to be a win- win relationship between the AAA game industry and VR.

2 - Palmer sold Oculus to Facebook, including all the support from the Kickstarter backers and Valve (with a few Valve's engineers), therefore, Valve stopped supporting Oculus, all the good things between Steam and Oculus, couldn't be any longer available with Facebook in between.

3- Oculus under Facebook's hands was fully aware that Valve was working in his own HMD system, but this time, as a competitor, supported by the biggest AAA game community (SteamVR) and others giants like Google and HBO.
There is a big chance that killer AAA VR games will be released in conjunction with HTC Re Vive, (games such as Portal 3 or Half Life 3), on the another hand, Oculus seems to have very little support from the AAA game industry (games such as Lucky's Tale)

4- Oculus under this scenario, seems now to be focused on a different market (mobile), has released Gear VR and opened their own Oculus Store, a market that could potentially be very profitable, despite the quality of their applications, however about the PC platform, there has been almost no news since FB took the control of the company.

Would be hard competitors on the PC platform the reason why Oculus seems to be increasing VR mobile support despite PC's?

[shadowfrogger]

The PC VR market will be big enough for both the Vive and Rift, they are slightly going for different markets. I highly doubt 1 headset will dominate the other to the point of company bankruptcy. VR developers will release on all platforms to increase their sales. Exclusives will only be from first party. The rift will work on steam.

If Facebook didn't buy out oculus, the rift was have a even harder time completing with the Vive. We have also yet to see final prices from either headset which is still a major factor. The Pc Vr market will always be there as long as high end GPUs are still selling. If there is a market for cards like the titan X then the pc vr market is never in danger. Mobile will bring in more money in 10 years or they will merge. Why not have a portable vr headset which connects to the pc also.

The oculus store doesn't need to make Hugh income from the first rift. They're in for the long run so they will build up sales over the next 5 years. It won't just be games that they will sell. Films, vr tourism, pictures, sport events, even steam will have to adapt to the oculus store to compete on that level.

[NoxWings]

"Skelator" wrote:
Having both in race benefits the end consumer. >;{}

Apart from exclusive titles and so on...

[Chivas]

A better question might be...Can Valve compete with Oculus?

1. One of the most important factors is Oculus intent to sell their product at cost.

2. I believe Oculus has much larger highly qualified VR team. Oculus has hired one of Valve's lead techs in Abrash.

3. Oculus has established, supported, and funded a much larger group of 3rd Party software developers over the last two years. Valve has just started.

4. Oculus partnership with Samsung has given them access to the latest display technologies at a decent price point that Valve will have difficulty competing with.

5. Facebook monies has allowed Oculus to do almost anything they want.

6. Oculus isn't concentrating on Mobile. Only a small portion of their development team that includes Carmack are working with Samsung to develop the GearVR. Not to mention some of the lessons they will learn and can be applied too wireless PC headsets, which we would all prefer when its possible.

7. Valve has developed a "very good" prototype, atleast as good as the Crescent Bay and with inputs. BUT you'd have to believe that Oculus has done nothing to improve on their Crescent Bay prototype for almost a year to believe Valve is in the lead.

I'm sure Valve and Oculus will release very competitive products. We won't know until we see their hardware specs, system requirements, and available software before deciding which hardware will suit us individually. Personally I think Oculus still holds an edge, with the software I want to run, but the competition is the best thing that could happen to us all.

[NoxWings]

"Chivas" wrote:
A better question might be...Can Valve compete with Oculus?

1. One of the most important factors is Oculus intent to sell their product at cost.

2. I believe Oculus has much larger highly qualified VR team. Oculus has hired one of Valve's lead techs in Abrash.

3. Oculus has established, supported, and funded a much larger group of 3rd Party software developers over the last two years. Valve has just started.

4. Oculus partnership with Samsung has given them access to the latest display technologies at a decent price point that Valve will have difficulty competing with.

5. Facebook monies has allowed Oculus to do almost anything they want.

6. Oculus isn't concentrating on Mobile. Only a small portion of their development team that includes Carmack are working with Samsung to develop the GearVR. Not to mention some of the lessons they will learn and can be applied too wireless PC headsets, which we would all prefer when its possible.

7. Valve has developed a "very good" prototype, atleast as good as the Crescent Bay and with inputs. BUT you'd have to believe that Oculus has done nothing to improve on their Crescent Bay prototype for almost a year to believe Valve is in the lead.

I'm sure Valve and Oculus will release very competitive products. We won't know until we see their hardware specs, system requirements, and available software before deciding which hardware will suit us individually. Personally I think Oculus still holds an edge, with the software I want to run, but the competition is the best thing that could happen to us all.

1.- True that.
2.- It's not the team fame but the actual product quality which defines it
3.- Valve can probably benefit from all of those vr projects out there too, unless they are exclusive.
4.- It is called HTC Vive... HTC and problably other manufacturers could take advantage of lighthouse tech soon...
5.- Well, this is a tough debate, I'm not going into that.
6.- You have your point but anyway --> Wireless != built-in
7.- Some of us think Oculus guys are being too picky to work on input until they had the (nearly) "perfect" solution. Btw IMHO I don't trust them too much in this subject or at least I don't agree with Mr. Carmack's bet on camera based input for hand tracking. Sure It could be great for mobile VR or as another input complement but not for general purpouse gaming.

[Chivas]

"NoxWings" wrote:

"Chivas" wrote:
A better question might be...Can Valve compete with Oculus?

1. One of the most important factors is Oculus intent to sell their product at cost.

2. I believe Oculus has much larger highly qualified VR team. Oculus has hired one of Valve's lead techs in Abrash.

3. Oculus has established, supported, and funded a much larger group of 3rd Party software developers over the last two years. Valve has just started.

4. Oculus partnership with Samsung has given them access to the latest display technologies at a decent price point that Valve will have difficulty competing with.

5. Facebook monies has allowed Oculus to do almost anything they want.

6. Oculus isn't concentrating on Mobile. Only a small portion of their development team that includes Carmack are working with Samsung to develop the GearVR. Not to mention some of the lessons they will learn and can be applied too wireless PC headsets, which we would all prefer when its possible.

7. Valve has developed a "very good" prototype, atleast as good as the Crescent Bay and with inputs. BUT you'd have to believe that Oculus has done nothing to improve on their Crescent Bay prototype for almost a year to believe Valve is in the lead.

I'm sure Valve and Oculus will release very competitive products. We won't know until we see their hardware specs, system requirements, and available software before deciding which hardware will suit us individually. Personally I think Oculus still holds an edge, with the software I want to run, but the competition is the best thing that could happen to us all.

1.- True that.
2.- It's not the team fame but the actual product quality which defines it
3.- Valve can probably benefit from all of those vr projects out there too, unless they are exclusive.
4.- It is called HTC Vive... HTC and problably other manufacturers could take advantage of lighthouse tech soon...
5.- Well, this is a tough debate, I'm not going into that.
6.- You have your point but anyway --> Wireless != built-in
7.- Some of us think Oculus guys are being too picky to work on input until they had the (nearly) "perfect" solution. Btw IMHO I don't trust them too much in this subject or at least I don't agree with Mr. Carmack's bet on camera based input for hand tracking. Sure It could be great for mobile VR or as another input complement but not for general purpouse gaming.

2. Its definitely the quality of the headset that defines it, but a larger highly qualified development VR team is more likely to have better R&D results. That said it only takes one tech to make a major break thru in VR, but I'm referring to percentages.

3. I'm not sure how Valve will benefit from software developers coding for Oculus hardware. Unless both Valve and Oculus software integration is the same.

4. Does HTC develop their own displays or contract it out?

7. I doubt that Oculus will delay their headset waiting for the perfect input device. I doubt there is a such a thing as the perfect input device, and their are plenty of input devices already out their that could be supported. Maybe something that can easily be transformed into a number of form factors might work. I'm not so sure input devices will be required for the first consumer version, and still wondering about the ramifications of blind people waving around sticks, destroying furniture, sending friends, significant others, and kids to the hospital. Wands are great for some situations, but won't be necessary for many sims, like shooters, racing, and flight sims. I like the idea of tread mill devices, stationary bikes/rowing machines, etc for shooters, exercise, exploration, etc.

[reptilexcq]

Virtually everyone who has tried both Vive and Crescent Bay prototypes say Vive is on another level. Now i know Oculus will probably come out with inputs that involved tracking hands, body and feet but if it's just a seated experience...it's not enough. Vive also can be used as a seated experience as well. So in that case, why would i want Oculus Rift when I can also use Vive to walk around in a room fully immerse.

[Anonymous]

"reptilexcq" wrote:
Virtually everyone who has tried both Vive and Crescent Bay prototypes say Vive is on another level. Now i know Oculus will probably come out with inputs that involved tracking hands, body and feet but if it's just a seated experience...it's not enough. Vive also can be used as a seated experience as well. So in that case, why would i want Oculus Rift when I can also use Vive to walk around in a room fully immerse.

Ehhh-- not 100% true. There are a few things that you not taking into account...
1) Vive almost didn't show up with the HMD. It was a last min "holy crap we got it to work." What would you have said if it didn't show up? Steam doesn't have the best track record on releasing things fast or at least not on the release date they first give.

1.5) CB is almost a year old and Oculus will be releasing CV1 information later this year ~ if not, hopefully, release this year.

2) CB and Vive look almost the same in terms of tracking and visuals. I'll have to give it to Vive the most because the SDE was better ~ but I have to say it was because of the different screen they use instead of a over all better screen tech.

3) What make it different was that you could move around and use your hands. Anything that adds in more real live input adds to the exp. by powers x^x. Simple moving around adds a whole a lot more.

4) I don't think moving around is going to be all that cool. Who's really going to run around in a box all day long? Yea its cool at first ~ but it be taxing to do that every day lol. Like REALLY are you going to stand around moving your arms all day just to kill 10 people that take 10mins to kill each time? Even 100 enemies that take a min each? You'll wear your self out. It's the PS Move and Weii all over again ~ people will be really iffy about it ~

5) Price is going to play a big roll in this. Some are going to see the benefits and be ok for the cost ~ others ~ not so much. Right now, Vive has more hardware you have to buy and that means higher cost. On the other hand, Oculus is mostly software ~ meaning over all wont cost as much. Hardware can only get some software updates before you have to just replace it. Software can be updated and change ~ so more flexible and powerful over time.

6) I like to have both inputs ~ Lighthouse is a stand alone product in a way ~ so we could in theory use Oculus hand tracking as an OVR and hand tracking, meaning we don't have to setup each time, while using the Lighthouse for when we want to use weapons/combat stuff.

7) You have to setup Vive each time you want to use it... Oculus way doesn't require it as much and if the rumors are right ~ wont require setup at all as they are trying to move the external camera inwards (outwards?).

😎 Another problem with moving around ~ it becomes a damager to others around you as well. Kicking and punching all around ~ kid or your grandma wont know what you are doing and - BOOM! right in the face ~ that's not going to fly in court ~

9) WOW this really makes me think of xbox vs ps xD

[waldien23]

I just wanted to chime in here. While many people on this thread have commented that mobile is the bigger market and that Oculus have no serious challengers in this space, people are forgetting that Oculus will likely receive some serious challenges from a different but similar technology that is AR.

While AR is very different from VR for the enthusiasts that visit this forum, it is likely that most of the mainstream public do not see a huge difference. Furthermore AR has a distinct advantage of not leaving the wearer blind to the outside world. AR may have less immersion when compared to VR, but it would be infinitely more practical to use in most settings. As this technology becomes more mainstream Oculus's Gear VR will find itself less likely to face competition from something like the HTC Vive, and more from Microsoft's Hololens, Magic Leap, and Google Glass.

Focusing on Mobile VR may leave Oculus stranded in no-man's land. Too unpractical for mainstream use but not hardcore enough for serious gamers.

[Malkmus1979]

it would be infinitely more practical to use in most settings

Could you be more specific? I'm someone who's quite skeptical of AR taking off or even being ready anytime soon. Whereas VR has very many uses that are already available and already proving very fun and useful to people, Hololens and Magic Leap seem years away from being actual products people will want to buy (other than debs), and I have yet to see something that I or my peers would be into.

[VizionVR]

I'm interested to see AR used in an office or school environment. For starters, multiple virtual screens within an actual office or schoolroom would open things up a bit.
VR can be a confining, confusing experience when you need to interact with the physical area/items/people nearby. AR would solve this problem.