There is a dev kit available for sale for ~$300, but it's still the earlier dev kit that lacks the better OLED panel and positional tracking. There will be a dev kit (DK2) that is based on this Crystal Cove version released before the consumer version, likely sometime in the first half of this year, and given the final price targets I suspect it won't be much more than $300, if any, but it's not available now.
By the time this thing actually comes to retail (if it ever does), we will have been fed constant hype for three years. It's too much, by far. I mean seriously, every little nuance of change, every game that adds support, and every time Carmack takes a dump at Oculus HQ - at some point, it stops being interesting journalism and becomes a simple regurgitation of marketing press releases that nobody needs to be reading. Too much hype.
All that said, I'm not eager to add cameras to my environment.
I thinks the reporting just shows that a decent development cycle takes time. To develop a good new product that is not half backed is a long and slow process. We usually don't see it because it happens behind the scenes and companies usually announce once they have advanced production prototypes. Oculus is a start up that is using a open venture capital process so we will see the whole process.
Once they get it right and release, the knock offs will come rolling out much faster because they know what works and everyone will say that it was obvious how to do it, we just had to wait for the technology.
This was what happened to Apple when they released the iPhone. They suggested that they were years ahead of the competition, which was true if you assumed everyone else started from scratch. Unfortunately for Apple they showed everyone how to do it and gave everyone a basis to work from. By the way I am not making a comment about whether others copied Apple, just that once you see something that works it is easier to make a jump.
Disagree completely. Would you rather they dumped a half-assed beta product that may lure some geeks, but won't be good enough for the normal people, or wait until they make it really good?
It also matters, because I'd rather they decided very well what are the standards for games, and for that they need to know what the final standards will be themselves. Otherwise, there will be games that will be hard to modify with future Oculus versions, and so on.
They definitely need to stop implying it's coming out in a given year when it's clearly not. I'm also not convinced they're ever going to release it. They keep adding more and more crap to it, adding more and more employees to their roster, and sucking in as many investors as possible.
I think they're losing the plot, but wait till they price it and then we'll know for sure. Oculus was meant to be AFFORDABLE VR. Not the best VR ever in the history of the world.
totally disagree with your statement, the update new regarding the Rift is never minor. If you don't want to read it. Don't. Don't tell others what they should, should not be interested in, or report on.
When you go above 1080p you really need to start thinking about GPU horse power to attain an appropriate frame rate. There's also a trade off between 1080p@120hz and 1440p@60hz as low persistance at 60hz can flicker.
With time we'll have all the horse power in the world of course, but right now I think I personally would prefer a 120hz 1080p panel. A better subpixel arrangement would be a bit of an improvement over the current OLED.
I'm curious what are Brian's thoughts on this since he actually tested it. Assuming they won't delay it more than a year, would he like in the consumer version to have a 1440p resolution (~2x the pixels), or 120 Hz?
And also not sure what OLED screen they used, but let's assume they will be using Samsung's Galaxy S4 panel, which I think was much better at the whole sub-pixel arrangement thing than previous versions? I doubt we'll see true RGB in OLED anytime soon, so that's as good as we're going to get.
I'm leaning towards 120Hz rather than 1440p, and maybe jump to 1440p after 2 more years, when those panels should be cheaper, too.
I don't think they would do both at the same time even if they could this year. It's already starting to take a big toll on GPU performance. Assuming the standard for PC gaming is 30fps and 1080p resolution and a certain graphics level, with Oculus you'd get 2x more required for 3D, another 2x for 60fps already, and then another 2x for 120fps, and if you want 1440p, another 2x or so.
So with 3D enabled by default (2x), 120fps (4x), and 1440p(2x), that's a whooping 16x performance requirement needed just to play today's games properly. That's why I think they will choose only one of the two: 120hz or 1440p, and then it's "only" 8x difference, which could probably be matched in 5 years time or so (meaning we can play games on Oculus in 2019 that are of as good quality as today's great-looking PC games).
I for one don't mind, because Oculus makes everything feel a lot more real, even if technically the graphics will be about an order of magnitude worse.
I just wanted to point out that the 3D in the Oculus is done at half-res so there isn't nearly a 2x hit there. Even so, a 4-8x performance gap is going to be difficult to swallow for the average gamer.
The pixel count isn't as important as the screen-door effect, either. If they can just reduce the size of the space between pixels (slightly-bigger pixels in the same physical space), things will look much better.
I don't actually care about the inertia or positional tracking or even 3-D. I just want high resolution goggles. I don't see anybody hitting the volumes necessary for that to be a reasonable price with good quality before Oculus. It would be nice if they could offer a version for stationary use (maybe knock $50 off the price?). I realize 1080p is actually divided across two eyes in the current incarnation, but I would expect each eye to get 1080p before too long.
Until last week I was a complete VR skeptic (having tried demos at SIGGRAPH since the 90's) But I finally tried the Oculus Rift last week. The combination of fast response and inertial tracking is a game changer. I literally was pushing my chair back to get away from a low-poly monster chasing me in a dungeon demo. And I'm about as jaded as they come. Occulus should release the Rift now, and release the Crystal Cove when it is working. I'd buy both.
3D is pretty critical to the whole Oculus experience. That's how you are able to feel "inside" that world. Otherwise it would be just like looking at a giant screen, like with Sony's HMZ thing.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
17 Comments
Back to Article
yik3000 - Friday, January 10, 2014 - link
hello, Sam Fishertech.kyle - Friday, January 10, 2014 - link
Two things seem to be missing from the article. One, are these available as dev kits? Two, if they are, what's the price now?PhoenixEnigma - Saturday, January 11, 2014 - link
There is a dev kit available for sale for ~$300, but it's still the earlier dev kit that lacks the better OLED panel and positional tracking. There will be a dev kit (DK2) that is based on this Crystal Cove version released before the consumer version, likely sometime in the first half of this year, and given the final price targets I suspect it won't be much more than $300, if any, but it's not available now.TerdFerguson - Friday, January 10, 2014 - link
By the time this thing actually comes to retail (if it ever does), we will have been fed constant hype for three years. It's too much, by far. I mean seriously, every little nuance of change, every game that adds support, and every time Carmack takes a dump at Oculus HQ - at some point, it stops being interesting journalism and becomes a simple regurgitation of marketing press releases that nobody needs to be reading. Too much hype.All that said, I'm not eager to add cameras to my environment.
p1esk - Friday, January 10, 2014 - link
I think there's not enough hype about this. This device might finally bring VR to the masses. Please keep us updated!ChrisOz - Saturday, January 11, 2014 - link
I thinks the reporting just shows that a decent development cycle takes time. To develop a good new product that is not half backed is a long and slow process. We usually don't see it because it happens behind the scenes and companies usually announce once they have advanced production prototypes. Oculus is a start up that is using a open venture capital process so we will see the whole process.Once they get it right and release, the knock offs will come rolling out much faster because they know what works and everyone will say that it was obvious how to do it, we just had to wait for the technology.
This was what happened to Apple when they released the iPhone. They suggested that they were years ahead of the competition, which was true if you assumed everyone else started from scratch. Unfortunately for Apple they showed everyone how to do it and gave everyone a basis to work from. By the way I am not making a comment about whether others copied Apple, just that once you see something that works it is easier to make a jump.
Krysto - Sunday, January 12, 2014 - link
Disagree completely. Would you rather they dumped a half-assed beta product that may lure some geeks, but won't be good enough for the normal people, or wait until they make it really good?It also matters, because I'd rather they decided very well what are the standards for games, and for that they need to know what the final standards will be themselves. Otherwise, there will be games that will be hard to modify with future Oculus versions, and so on.
HisDivineOrder - Monday, January 13, 2014 - link
They definitely need to stop implying it's coming out in a given year when it's clearly not. I'm also not convinced they're ever going to release it. They keep adding more and more crap to it, adding more and more employees to their roster, and sucking in as many investors as possible.I think they're losing the plot, but wait till they price it and then we'll know for sure. Oculus was meant to be AFFORDABLE VR. Not the best VR ever in the history of the world.
jmke - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
totally disagree with your statement, the update new regarding the Rift is never minor. If you don't want to read it. Don't. Don't tell others what they should, should not be interested in, or report on.DesktopMan - Friday, January 10, 2014 - link
When you go above 1080p you really need to start thinking about GPU horse power to attain an appropriate frame rate. There's also a trade off between 1080p@120hz and 1440p@60hz as low persistance at 60hz can flicker.With time we'll have all the horse power in the world of course, but right now I think I personally would prefer a 120hz 1080p panel. A better subpixel arrangement would be a bit of an improvement over the current OLED.
Krysto - Sunday, January 12, 2014 - link
I'm curious what are Brian's thoughts on this since he actually tested it. Assuming they won't delay it more than a year, would he like in the consumer version to have a 1440p resolution (~2x the pixels), or 120 Hz?And also not sure what OLED screen they used, but let's assume they will be using Samsung's Galaxy S4 panel, which I think was much better at the whole sub-pixel arrangement thing than previous versions? I doubt we'll see true RGB in OLED anytime soon, so that's as good as we're going to get.
I'm leaning towards 120Hz rather than 1440p, and maybe jump to 1440p after 2 more years, when those panels should be cheaper, too.
I don't think they would do both at the same time even if they could this year. It's already starting to take a big toll on GPU performance. Assuming the standard for PC gaming is 30fps and 1080p resolution and a certain graphics level, with Oculus you'd get 2x more required for 3D, another 2x for 60fps already, and then another 2x for 120fps, and if you want 1440p, another 2x or so.
So with 3D enabled by default (2x), 120fps (4x), and 1440p(2x), that's a whooping 16x performance requirement needed just to play today's games properly. That's why I think they will choose only one of the two: 120hz or 1440p, and then it's "only" 8x difference, which could probably be matched in 5 years time or so (meaning we can play games on Oculus in 2019 that are of as good quality as today's great-looking PC games).
I for one don't mind, because Oculus makes everything feel a lot more real, even if technically the graphics will be about an order of magnitude worse.
Edward Peek - Sunday, January 12, 2014 - link
I just wanted to point out that the 3D in the Oculus is done at half-res so there isn't nearly a 2x hit there. Even so, a 4-8x performance gap is going to be difficult to swallow for the average gamer.mkozakewich - Tuesday, February 4, 2014 - link
The pixel count isn't as important as the screen-door effect, either. If they can just reduce the size of the space between pixels (slightly-bigger pixels in the same physical space), things will look much better.chrysrobyn - Sunday, January 12, 2014 - link
I don't actually care about the inertia or positional tracking or even 3-D. I just want high resolution goggles. I don't see anybody hitting the volumes necessary for that to be a reasonable price with good quality before Oculus. It would be nice if they could offer a version for stationary use (maybe knock $50 off the price?). I realize 1080p is actually divided across two eyes in the current incarnation, but I would expect each eye to get 1080p before too long.hellcats - Sunday, January 12, 2014 - link
Until last week I was a complete VR skeptic (having tried demos at SIGGRAPH since the 90's) But I finally tried the Oculus Rift last week. The combination of fast response and inertial tracking is a game changer. I literally was pushing my chair back to get away from a low-poly monster chasing me in a dungeon demo. And I'm about as jaded as they come. Occulus should release the Rift now, and release the Crystal Cove when it is working. I'd buy both.Krysto - Monday, January 13, 2014 - link
3D is pretty critical to the whole Oculus experience. That's how you are able to feel "inside" that world. Otherwise it would be just like looking at a giant screen, like with Sony's HMZ thing.piroroadkill - Monday, January 13, 2014 - link
1280x800 ≠ WVGAWVGA would be 800x480 (or maybe 854x480).
1280x800 would be a type of WXGA.