cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Techcrunch Are At It Again

Anonymous
Not applicable
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/31/after-canceling-rift-2-overhaul-oculus-plans-a-modest-update-to-fl...

Now they're saying that they're releasing a Rift S with inside out tracking and a slight resolution bump. Basically a WVR headset. Sounds like a load of old bollocks to me.
127 REPLIES 127

pyroth309
Visionary

kevinw729 said:

I think its a bridge-too-far to think that (if it exists) Rift-S would use inside-out tracking - the management would be abandoning all of the investment addressing the issues with Constellation, and would mean a considerable porting of content already working on the CV1 to the new alternative. Given the timeline on Quest (Spring'19), then deploying a connected PC alternative would take some serious investment in time and money (obviously Facebook has deep pockets, but how deep)!

Anyone that has been following the recent restructuring of OVR after the departure will see that the company seems focused on a AR path, keeping in line with the ML, MS and Apple dev paths - I think its more likely their first VR/AR headset will be inside-out in the long run!


I alluded to it earlier in this thread, but my thinking is that perhaps with Oculus hyping up the ability of quest to have people co-exist together in the same room with Arena Scale maybe that they wanted to be able to extend it to Rift. Facebook is a social company after all and constellation has a lot of shortcomings to do that with cabling and play area size compared to the competition. My personal take is I'm indifferent. I like the portability of inside out and I think it makes the most sense but if the tracking isn't good enough it's probably a mistake. 

bigmike20vt
Visionary
I wonder if Brendan iribe has the chops or the interest to get serious backing of another tech company and if so if oculus would allow another company to supply a high end oculus approved hmd which works of the oculus store?
I dunno just pie in the sky thinking probably but where is the downside?
Another company get a serious head start in the design, OTOH it would generate sales for oculus on their store which is surely where money is made and it would not compete with oculus who are allegedly more interested in aiming for mainstream and not the high end.
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

ShocksVR
Superstar



Personally, I think a rift S would be too confusing for the rift lineup. They already have 3 VR sets, A rift S would have to be more expensive then the CV1 or push the price down further on the CV1.  Better or worst Tracking aside(I've have a feeling it'll be just as good as the CV1). A Lenses and Resolution upgrade for at least a $100-200 price increase, do you really want to have about a $100 difference between thr rift S and rift CV1.  I am assuming a smaller price difference as it can't vary too much from quest.  I kinda think from a marketing perspective, it isn't worth it. If there was a plan for a rift S, I really think they would of just added the hardware for pc tethering for quest and called it a day. But they actively decided agaisnt that.  If they replaced the CV1's place and phased out the current CV1 model. Different story.



My personal belief is they would just do a straight replacement. Discontinue Rift CV1 and replace it with Rift S CV1 and keep it at the $400 price point.

This would be like Microsoft replacing Xbox One (Black) with Xbox One S (white).  They discontinue the black model; although the white model was "more expensive" until the older model sold out.
i7-7700k, Zotac RTX 3080 AMP Holo (10G), QuestPro, Quest 2
Previous: Oculus GO, Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale, Oculus Rift S

Anonymous
Not applicable


I wonder if Brendan iribe has the chops or the interest to get serious backing of another tech company and if so if oculus would allow another company to supply a high end oculus approved hmd which works of the oculus store?
I dunno just pie in the sky thinking probably but where is the downside?
Another company get a serious head start in the design, OTOH it would generate sales for oculus on their store which is surely where money is made and it would not compete with oculus who are allegedly more interested in aiming for mainstream and not the high end.



I wouldn't have thought this was possible, otherwise Palmer Luckey would have done it. Both are bound to have non-compete clauses in their contracts for at least 2 years after leaving. This is pretty standard in any industry where trade secrets are involved.

Both will also have signed an NDA before being let go which is why Iribe being the source for these articles is unlikely.

shadowfrogger
Heroic Explorer
Perhaps Brendan left because Oculus thought the cv2 was too expensive to bring out in 2019/2020.  If we had all the half dome features, are we looking at least $600 again?
Are Oculus banking on the fact that it wouldn't be a market seller(as in 2million+ sales) and hence canceled it until further notice.
They really do need to focus in on the quest breaking the market open at the moment.  While I love my high end Pc, getting that console range VR with high quality games/software and a massive market to back it.  I think that will only end up being a good thing for the high end pc market.  Next Gen console vr is still years away.
Visit my amateur homegrown indie game company website! http://www.gaming-disorder.com/

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

snowdog said:

I would have been more inclined to believe these two TechCrunch clickbait articles if they didn't say that the Rift S is going to have inside out tracking. If they had said it was going to use Constellation tracking then it would have met my prediction I made a while back about the CV2 being released next year. I said a while back that it would come next year and use Constellation tracking.

But using Insight for high-end PC VR makes absolutely no sense at all when it isn't going to provide 360 degree tracking which Echo Arena in particular needs. And then you have all of the bow and arrow games where you pull the drawstring to your ear. You wouldn't be able to play those either because the controllers are going to be too close to your head. These are all issues that WVR headset owners have complained about in the past.



Exactly. Furthermore, TechCrunch contradicts themselves (yet again) by claiming that the Rift will move to inside-out tracking while also claiming that the upgrades to this new Rift are only a 1.5 upgrade. It can't be 1.5 if the tracking is changing that drastically.
All of this dialogue surrounding the fake news is just so painfully reminiscent of the days when people said Santa Cruz was really the Rift being cancelled as a PCVR product. Once Facebook-Oculus announces the true facts (real news vs fake news), then the conversation can move towards something more sensible. After which, of course, new rumors can start and people can give in to that hype as well.
I wonder how many Hype Trains involving the Rift's demise will take place between now and 2022?
Counting the Hype Train so far:
  1. The Rift was launched with a Gamepad and 1 Sensor = no more Rift
  2. Project Santa Cruz = no more Rift
  3. Release of Oculus GO = no more Rift
  4. No new Rift in 2018 = no more Rift
  5. Iribe leaves Facebook = no more Rift
  6. Rift S rumors = no more Rift
Number 6 is in regards to how the rumor puts a new Rift more on par as a stand-alone mobile device similar to Quest instead of the PCVR Powerhouse that it remains to this day. Thus: Rift S = death of PCVR Rift.

There's always someone somewhere feeding in to some type of Hype. I believe that at this point the Oculus Rift is in fact... Undead.

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:

I also think they kept Oculus Quest from been tethered to a PC, so as to not confuse people with Oculus PC-VR, or to maybe keep the cost down and the headset weighing less. It would also be confusing to Oculus Quest owners to pick up a game or app that required PC performance and to find out that it didn't work unless it was tethered to a PC. So you see there's plenty of reasons why they might have choose not to have Oculus Quest tethered to a PC.



Sure - but that seems more like poor marketing and information on the customer than the fault of the system. I mean it happen to me when I younger - I didn't look for the PC, PS, or SegaG. After one return - I learn my lesson and started looking for the logo from that point on. Point being - its something I don't see really being a problem though from a public relation side of things.

I am still on the camp side that they could've and wouldn't be that hard to add it though. I think if anything - it's to keep up the idea that PC-VR is the highest while they focus on the mobile side of things more. Less support needed for a close system than an open system for example. IF anything - to keep people from being confused why software A was bought and working with their mobile part - yet when plug in on the pc - doesn't improve performance and they can't play it on the computer half without buying it again. Sadly - I think it's more of a marketing tool to sell more software between each system.

Fazz
Honored Visionary

Mradr said:


RedRizla said:

I also think they kept Oculus Quest from been tethered to a PC, so as to not confuse people with Oculus PC-VR, or to maybe keep the cost down and the headset weighing less. It would also be confusing to Oculus Quest owners to pick up a game or app that required PC performance and to find out that it didn't work unless it was tethered to a PC. So you see there's plenty of reasons why they might have choose not to have Oculus Quest tethered to a PC.



Sure - but that seems more like poor marketing and information on the customer than the fault of the system. I mean it happen to me when I younger - I didn't look for the PC, PS, or SegaG. After one return - I learn my lesson and started looking for the logo from that point on. Point being - its something I don't see really being a problem though from a public relation side of things.

I am still on the camp side that they could've and wouldn't be that hard to add it though. I think if anything - it's to keep up the idea that PC-VR is the highest while they focus on the mobile side of things more. Less support needed for a close system than an open system for example. IF anything - to keep people from being confused why software A was bought and working with their mobile part - yet when plug in on the pc - doesn't improve performance and they can't play it on the computer half without buying it again. Sadly - I think it's more of a marketing tool to sell more software between each system.



I was answering a the guy who said a Rift-S would confuse people. I was basically saying That an Oculus Quest that could be tethered to a PC would confuse more people then something as simple as a Rift-S. A Rift-S would just be CV1 updated to bring it up to date with their mobile devices. 

Oculus Quest being tethered to a PC could confuse people when it came to game choice. Oculus would have to state whether or not a particular game only worked while tethered to a PC, which could put people off the Oculus Quest altogether. You would get people moaning no doubt that they couldn't play this game or that game and we would be back to square one with people moaning they had to buy a PC. 

I think it makes total sense to have Oculus Quest as just a mobile headset that isn't tethered to a PC for the reasons I have mentioned above. I also said in another post in this thread that it might be a good idea (When millions of people become accustomed to VR) to have have a mobile device that also connects to a PC.

Hardware will also be a lot cheaper in time and people might not be to bothered about purchasing a computer to go with their Oculus Quest in years to come. Right now though it's not cheap to get a PC that runs VR, so why confuse things by having the Oculus Quest connect to a PC? We already have PC-VR for people who want PC-VR..

HiThere_
Superstar

kevinw729 said:


Oculus GO $199
Oculus Rift CV1 (Entry Level) $299
Oculus Quest $399
Oculus Rift S $499
This is still a confused bundle for a marketing team - how about this Q4 2019:

Oculus GO $199
Oculus Quest $299
Oculus Rift S $399

Now that looks workable (streamline), with a great software offering - and at the same time the new commercial division can sell these systems into the neglected markets they have now pivoted towards.




Oculus Cardboard $19
Oculus Quest $199
Oculus Rift S $299

And there you have it : A race to the bottom.

The real question might be how long it takes before we switch from Quest getting Rift ports with a graphic downgrade, to Rift getting Quest ports with no graphic upgrade.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

HiThere_ said:
....
Oculus Cardboard $19
Oculus Quest $199
Oculus Rift S $299

And there you have it : A race to the bottom.



Hey, at least I have the name for the "Oculus Cardboard.... Muddy Water"!

The real question might be how long it takes before we switch from Quest getting Rift ports with a graphic downgrade, to Rift getting Quest ports with no graphic upgrade.

Seriously, I do not think in the 2019-20 climate for tech that a "down-scaled" system would be able to gain traction.

The "Fake News" doing the rounds suggests that the new Samsung XR Headset being revealed this week will use the Snapdragon 855 - while all the AR/VR stuff at CES'19 will be rocking mostly 835's so I cant really see a upgrade path being viable to stay relevant. But we have to be aware that exclusive content can force support (ala Nintendo).
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959