Yes, hopefully its somthing that happens in the future.
Because it would be better for the consumer.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Oculus co-founder (Brendan Iribe) leaving Facebook after cancellation of "Rift 2"
- Thread starter 1-D_FE
- Start date
Yes, hopefully its somthing that happens in the future.
Because it would be better for the consumer.
The problem is the money is in the software and royalties, and Oculus really has no incentive to make it work on PC when Valve eats half of their lunch by selling the same games on steam. It's pretty clear to me that's partially why the quest won't connect with PCs and why they won't continue down that line. If valve continues to eat everyone's lunch PCVR simply won't have as much investment, and it will only have vastly overpriced headsets. I assume the hardware makers that partner with valve and Steam VR will want some kind of cut on the software sales. I'm not sure what HTC got out of it, but I assume Valve will cave to some kind of deal rather than have PCVR die off where they get nothing.
HTC gets 100% of their hardware profits (which is also probably a big reason it's been consistently more expensive than the Rift). Valve licenses the tech for free.
Is this in jest? I mean, do you really believe that Valve is at fault here? I'm afraid I can't quite follow your logic here.
If the cancellation of the Rift 2 is true, then I think it might be in direct relation to the better than expected sales for the Oculus Go. They might want to fully concentrate on products that are self sustained and don't require any additional hardware to work. As a Vive and Rift owner I really want to see high-end VR to thrive, but from the perspective of Oculus it might be necessary to start from the low end to eventually get there. I expect for Valve and Sony to continue developing high-end VR hardware.
OC5: John Carmack On Go Sales And Usage: 'It Exceeded Even My Expectations
https://uploadvr.com/oc5-john-carmack-on-go-sales-and-usage-it-exceeded-even-my-expectations/
OC5: John Carmack On Go Sales And Usage: 'It Exceeded Even My Expectations
https://uploadvr.com/oc5-john-carmack-on-go-sales-and-usage-it-exceeded-even-my-expectations/
An article from a respected tech blog that has sourced internal employees close to the matter, along with the fact that the Oculus cofounder who was the head of Rift development left the company.
It's not in jest - I'm pretty sure that their business model from the beginning was to sell hardware at close to cost/or at a loss then make money from the software sales. I don't know that Valve is at fault, it's simply that Valve has a sizable control over the PC market through Steam and this business model really doesn't have much shot at working anymore as Oculus had planned it. Rift's own customers end up buying games from Steam instead of the Oculus store for various reasons - I have a Rift and I actually buy about half my games on steam. They get a cut of all of the software sales on the quest and the go.
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. It just seems like a continuation of the "Steam is a monopoly" crap some people proclaim from time to time. Why would Valve be at fault for selling VR games on Steam? It's literally their job.
At any rate, why do you think that most people buy their stuff on Steam instead of going over to the Oculus store? I'd say it's because one of these two stores offers far more functionality than the other. That's not Valve's fault, it'd be Oculus'.
Don't think it has anything to do with Valve. Acquisitions are always brought inline with the parent company goals. That was exactly the obvious transition I witnessed while I was there. Many people who came from core gaming backgrounds and wanted to continue making core gaming products left the company including Kenneth Scott.
One thing I will say is oculus has extremely talented hardware people.
Facebook is not interested in making core games or content only owning platforms and utilizing their leverage in social engineering. They too missed the mobile wave and have constantly regretted it. They want to be the OS.
But really it's just biding time until AR can go more mainstream which makes far more sense for Facebook's trajectory and aligns with social and ad opportunities with the ability to reach a much wider audience.
One thing I will say is oculus has extremely talented hardware people.
Facebook is not interested in making core games or content only owning platforms and utilizing their leverage in social engineering. They too missed the mobile wave and have constantly regretted it. They want to be the OS.
But really it's just biding time until AR can go more mainstream which makes far more sense for Facebook's trajectory and aligns with social and ad opportunities with the ability to reach a much wider audience.
Oculus has NO incentive to make it work? I mean, that can't be right. The PC audience is gigantic. If their stuff was amazing and the games were there it would sell. I think they have brand problems more than anything else. While Valve does take a lot out you are right. Companies will have to try and shift around it if they want to go it alone without the digital storefront that they offer.
Plus, we are still early VR. It's not gonna be an easy road, but cutting yourself off from PC is crazy talk.
I do know my first post came off as anti-Valve, I'm not sure I'm looking for anyone being at fault - it's more my observations of how things have played out on the PC side; cost is actually the biggest hurdle keeping PCVR from reaching the mass market. I'm looking at this as if I were an business executive at FB. I think most people buy VR games from steam because they don't want to be 'locked in' in case a future headset comes out from another company - and Steam has established that they're support all headsets - that's why I do. I actually favor the Steam VR store over Oculus.
Cost and the fact the actual product isn't ready for the masses to approach it. They might not be wowed yet, they might get sick, they might not have games to play, et cetera. It will be a few years before VR is ready for the masses despite some absolutely amazing experiences.
My biggest issue with turning the next VR headset into a low power mobile platform is appealing to a larger audience which may potentially mean less AAA titles and a bigger investment in small junkware apps/games, similar to smartphones.
You'll turn on your mobile Rift/Vive and instead of seeing a bunch of interesting story driven games and AAA titles. Instead you'll be treated to a bunch of unknown crap with gimmicky, mis-lead descriptions and fake screenshots to make you think the game is deeper & better than it actually is.
You'll turn on your mobile Rift/Vive and instead of seeing a bunch of interesting story driven games and AAA titles. Instead you'll be treated to a bunch of unknown crap with gimmicky, mis-lead descriptions and fake screenshots to make you think the game is deeper & better than it actually is.
Oh man. I just checked. Yeah I still have the announcement thread link from way back on GAF. That humongous fucking thread with 115 pages...
A metric fuckload of us called this happening then and were shouted down hardcore for being freakouts:
MMMmmmm..... okay....
Gonna read that whole thread tomorrow while working for perspective, lol. AT this point I feel like a lot of those wishes are going up in smoke in real time. They will clearly still be around. But HOW they approach business I expect to be very different than what we would have expected way back then.
A metric fuckload of us called this happening then and were shouted down hardcore for being freakouts:
Guy1 said:
guy3 said:
guy3 said:
MMMmmmm..... okay....
Gonna read that whole thread tomorrow while working for perspective, lol. AT this point I feel like a lot of those wishes are going up in smoke in real time. They will clearly still be around. But HOW they approach business I expect to be very different than what we would have expected way back then.
The R&D they have already done on that isn't going anywhere. Also, all the features used in halfdome would benefit mobile and standalone as well.
There will be a successor to Rift at some point. When the hardware is ready and affordable.
One thing Carmack mentioned at OC5 was that unfortunately smart phone makers aren't developing UHD and higher resolution screens, because they were sensible enough to understand that those aren't needed for the size of smartphones. Which means the VR industry has to make those for itself. Driving up price, since no off the shelf hardware can be used. That alone will postpone any realistic next gen HMD, if they want to upgrade the resolution. Which obviously they want.
The advantage is, that if you make a screen dedicated to VR you can do the pixel placement according to the needs of VR and not to those when viewed without lenses. So it ultimately will provide better tech but it is also more costly since all the R&D has to be done by the VR industry. Which isn't exactly successful enough at this point to drive that research.
The current lineup of PC, mobile and standalone needs to get off the ground, otherwise the next generation can not be funded.
Obviously kickstarter projects like PIMAX will provide steps forward, little steps at high prices. Rivals like Google, Sony and HTC will provide steps forward. But those will also depend on how much money they make from their existing VR hardware.
I mean, there obviously will be a PSVR2 to coincide with PS5. But how much better its specs can be, and how low its price, will depend on the success of the current PSVR.
not having cables throughout the house and roof is a plus. But still shitty if it got canceled.
Guess HTC Vive is our hope.
Let's hope the HMD offers a wireless option by default (included in the box).
Michael Abrash predicted four years for foveated-level eye-tracking to become reality, we need something in between.
Rift 2019 -> Inside-out tracking + possibly wireless.
Rift 2020 -> Varifocal display + 140degree fov + basic eye-tracking.
4 years time -> Rift 2 w/foveated-level eye-tracking.
Michael Abrash predicted four years for foveated-level eye-tracking to become reality, we need something in between.
Rift 2019 -> Inside-out tracking + possibly wireless.
Rift 2020 -> Varifocal display + 140degree fov + basic eye-tracking.
4 years time -> Rift 2 w/foveated-level eye-tracking.
So a quest with a USB cable? Why not just merge the lines and have the quest be optionally attachable to PC
There is some benefit to getting a stop gap out soon but backing off on the high end is a mistake for the PC market which, by virtue of the fact that PC gaming is a pricey niche to begin with, is not super concerned with economy. VR has not been a growth driver in PC gaming as a whole, so for now it seems best to treat it as a subset of that market.
I also don't think the move to an exclusively inside-out solution is worth the limitations. WMR has struggled with that, and while Oculus implimentimple is better it speaks to the extent to which this market is unwilling to compromise.
If you read between the lines, this also means wireless is probably not in the cards, since that would likely involve a mounted receiver, and that would seem at odds with the decision to get rid of external sensors. Now, Rift 2 was certainly not going to be wireless either, because the feature set would push it beyond the boundaries of what we can do with wireless, but to then do neither makes the whole thing feel like a bit of a lateral move.
If Valve or someone else release a headset with a feature set more like what Rift 2 would have been I would switch. I have really liked Oculus and especially their first party output but if it's a matter of a transformatively better experience, I'm going to switch, pay more, etc.
But it isn't clear to me that anyone is going to go that way any time soon.
I also don't think the move to an exclusively inside-out solution is worth the limitations. WMR has struggled with that, and while Oculus implimentimple is better it speaks to the extent to which this market is unwilling to compromise.
If you read between the lines, this also means wireless is probably not in the cards, since that would likely involve a mounted receiver, and that would seem at odds with the decision to get rid of external sensors. Now, Rift 2 was certainly not going to be wireless either, because the feature set would push it beyond the boundaries of what we can do with wireless, but to then do neither makes the whole thing feel like a bit of a lateral move.
If Valve or someone else release a headset with a feature set more like what Rift 2 would have been I would switch. I have really liked Oculus and especially their first party output but if it's a matter of a transformatively better experience, I'm going to switch, pay more, etc.
But it isn't clear to me that anyone is going to go that way any time soon.
At OC5, Facebook reaffirmed that there would be a Rift 2 someday.
If this news were true, damn right it would be surprising.
Pretty sure it isnt true, though.
Nowadays, there is little point to taking anything facebook says at face value.
Rift 2 doesnt necessarily means the project the exCEO was working on.
OP
OP
It's semantics. Of course there's going to be a "Rift 2", but it's not the "Rift 2" that people were envisioning (and hence whj Iribe left the company). The latest article explains exactly what the cutting edge roadmap has been replaced with: It's going to be an Oculus Quest spec'd HMD that connects to the PC (ie slightly higher resolution and inside out cameras replacing the external cameras).
Carmack talked about the debate inside Facebook of whether they should have an video in to allow a PC to be tethered to the Quest as a hybrid and some here hilariously defended the decision (to not do it) because it wouldn't be much of an upgrade over the standard Rift and it'd be pointless. Well that's exactly what they're doing anyways. Just splitting it up into two models. One completely wireless and one completely tethered:(
Well more like 3 models if they aren't dropping the go.
But honestly it makes sense for them not to do it they don't want to step on their own toes and i can completely understand it but they still should haev made it optional .
Anymore? "Kids" never cared about PC, it's always been an enthusiast space.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/31/a...s-a-modest-update-to-flagship-vr-headset/amp/
Rift S = Rift PC compatibility + Oculus Quest design
it is a terrible idea, probably set in place when a more advanced Rift 2 was planned. I'm assuming a more 'evolution' Rift 2 will be pretty much exactly a quest - resolution seems on par with Vive Pro, lenses are much improved, and it has the inside out tracking. It would not surprise me if they literally keep the same internals to drive the tracking and just remove the battery and have it externally powered.
There is no issue cannibalising yourself - not many people will buy a quest and a rift 2. But keeping options open - get people on board with standalone 6dof Quest, then allow the upsell to a wireless adapter for PC or a cabled solution and then sell them on the more expensive oculus games.
If they put a Rift out next year, I wouldn't expect one in 2020.
Building X? Facebook reportedly plans major expansion of Oculus campus in Seattle suburbs
Citing documents obtained through a public records request, the Puget Sound Business Journal reports that the social giant is in the early planning phases for a 650,000-square-foot, two-building office project for its Facebook Reality Labs/Oculus division. The site of the project is along Willows Road, where Facebook is snatching up buildings left and right, on two parcels it bought earlier this year for $20 million.
Under the mysterious moniker "Building X," the project could kick off with demolition in May. No permits have been filed yet, and plans for the project could have been revised, but documents obtained by PSBJ indicate that Facebook hopes to open the new building or buildings toward the end of 2021.
Facebook reorganizes Oculus for AR/VR's long-haul
According to two sources, Facebook reorganized its AR and VR team this week from a divisional structure focused around products to a functional structure focused around technology areas of expertise. While no one was laid off, the change could eliminate redundancies by uniting specialists so they can iterate towards long-term progress rather than being separated into groups dedicated to particular gadgets.\
Citing documents obtained through a public records request, the Puget Sound Business Journal reports that the social giant is in the early planning phases for a 650,000-square-foot, two-building office project for its Facebook Reality Labs/Oculus division. The site of the project is along Willows Road, where Facebook is snatching up buildings left and right, on two parcels it bought earlier this year for $20 million.
Under the mysterious moniker "Building X," the project could kick off with demolition in May. No permits have been filed yet, and plans for the project could have been revised, but documents obtained by PSBJ indicate that Facebook hopes to open the new building or buildings toward the end of 2021.
Facebook reorganizes Oculus for AR/VR's long-haul
According to two sources, Facebook reorganized its AR and VR team this week from a divisional structure focused around products to a functional structure focused around technology areas of expertise. While no one was laid off, the change could eliminate redundancies by uniting specialists so they can iterate towards long-term progress rather than being separated into groups dedicated to particular gadgets.\
The government should make it manditory for every home to have a computer with a GTX 980 or better. Then Oculus should sell the Rift at 200 dollars.