These are nothing like 3D glasses. 3D glasses either use high speed shutters (the most headache inducing kind) or polarization to present different images to each eye. With headsets like the Oculus, each eye is simply being presented with different images. I don't think eye strain has been reported as an issue by many people, if any.
Nausea, on the other hand, is an issue for some. My experience with even the most recent dev kit was a nausea-fest. And no, I don't get motion sickness.
The thing with 3D is that you get headaches because not everyone's eyes are spaced apart at the same distance, while the images the TV shows are one distance only. If that is too different from your eyes your brain has a problem with that and it makes you know it with a headache.
You might have the same problem with VR, but i haven't heard of it. Nausea is induced, because your visual and physical senses don't match (it looks like you're on a roller coaster, but you fell like you are sitting still). That is a more difficult fix and you may need to get a "rocking chair".
Honestly, I expect this thing to completely flop in the consumer space. Don't get me wrong, it's an awesome piece of technology, but it's just too niche and like consumer 3D there are common health issues (eye strain, nausea, etc). A 3D TV that makes you nauseous is still an awesome TV with the 3D turned off, but you have that problem here and you have a $400 paperweight. And like any peripheral device, application support directly correlates to the size of the install base. No apps = no buyers, and in turn no buyers = no apps. This thing is a really expensive luxury toy, and not much else.
You are too pessimistic about the technology in general but this product might flop. First the price - you can take a 5.5 inch 1080p average quality screen that costs 20$ and maybe 15$ by next year , add a few cheap chips , e lenses and a lot of plastic and make it for less than 50$ to sell it at 99-149$. Oculus will likely go for higher res, maybe flexible screen, maybe 2 screens so the cost will be higher. They might add the external cam but no need for a high res cam so that will be cheap. All in all no reason for the BOM to be above 100$ ( could be plenty lower) unless they got some crazy controller. So a retail price of 400$ would be outrageous, 200-250$ is far more likely. 200-250$ is a bit high but not terrible . On the app side, all the mainstream games are the main attraction and then movies and TV made for the normal screen.So they already have more than enough of a market and plenty of time to build on that.
What might kill this first gen product is the external hardware ( it does for me) and the race for higher res and FPS. Well, kill is relative, if they don't reach 10 mil units per quarter after a few quarters, they failed in my eyes but some might see it as a great success if they ship 1-2 million units per quarter. The high screen res and high FPS problem is something everybody ignores. Everybody wants it but without thinking about the GPU needed to power it. Sure next year GPUs on 14/16nm will offer a big gain in perf but i really hope Oculus won't go for a 4k screen because requiring a 500$ GPU to use it would be a lot.Even 1440p at 90FPS wouldn't be that cheap on the GPU side. So Oculus could be hurt because they aimed too high instead of good enough a good price.
"you can take a 5.5 inch 1080p average quality screen that costs 20$ and maybe 15$ by next year , add a few cheap chips , e lenses and a lot of plastic and make it for less than 50$ to sell it at 99-149$."
If it were that easy, I don't think these various companies would be taking years to develop the technology.
It actually is that easy on the hardware side. ifixit has teardowns for both dev kits, the first one was a 7 inch 1280x800 tablet screen and 4 or so small chips. The second one was using a 5.7 inch 1440p screen (normally used in the Note) and got slightly more complex on the addition of the external cam. The hard part is head tracking fast enough so on the software side. The hardware itself is just a screen with lenses in front of it shoved in ski goggles.
As for screen prices ,they are that low for an average screen, more for OLED, higher res and so on. Unlike smartphones, Oculus doesn't need the touch layer so even a plastic OLED 1440p like in the Edge might be just 50$ by next year. That's what's great about Oculss, it was way simple and cheap.
10 mil per quarter or it's a failure? Really? Not even game consoles have that kind of volume. Even the Playstation 2, one of the best sellign game consoles in hsitory, only averaged 14 mil in a full YEAR and you are going to call Occulus, a much more niche product, a failure if they don't meet that every five months?
Sory but game consoles are a niche when it comes to gaming.They might be popular in the developed world but that's about it. PC gaming on the on the hand has 300 to 700 million gamers, depending on source. Show me a single PC gamer that won't want a good VR headset at a good price. And after that glasses can go after TVs and pretty much anyone that ever wanted a TV. it offers more for a lot less. So yes, if they don't sell a hell of a lot of units, it's a fail. And they kinda need to take teh market by storm or others will.
"So yes, if they don't sell a hell of a lot of units, it's a fail. And they kinda need to take teh market by storm or others will."
Its only a fail if they don't make money on them, and how is someone else going to "take the market by Storm"?
Software/games is what's needed,no Publisher support and they are all dead in the water. Which makes Valves Vive look like a winner since they can write their own stuff if needed, and it looks like they are doing that now, although I'm sure Carmack has a few friend he could call up. Oh well 2016 will be the year of VR that's for sure.
and how many of those hundreds of millions of supposed gamers have the 3d hardware to drive something like this? Obviously some would upgrade, but your potential pool for buyers of the rift looks a lot more like "current owners of high end graphics cards" than it does "everyone who has ever played Minesweeper". It's not that large.
My eyes dont hurt. I just enjoy it in all its glory. You must wear glasses or have some sort of eye defect. Not ur faylt just ur genetics. I hope this technology doesnt get hindered because of a small percentage of people who get headaches. Same people who cant be fighter pilots.
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
14 Comments
Back to Article
webdoctors - Wednesday, May 6, 2015 - link
Ian,How does this compare to 3D glasses? Those always give me a headache and strain my eyes. Do these feel more natural?
kyuu - Wednesday, May 6, 2015 - link
These are nothing like 3D glasses. 3D glasses either use high speed shutters (the most headache inducing kind) or polarization to present different images to each eye. With headsets like the Oculus, each eye is simply being presented with different images. I don't think eye strain has been reported as an issue by many people, if any.Nausea, on the other hand, is an issue for some. My experience with even the most recent dev kit was a nausea-fest. And no, I don't get motion sickness.
SleepyFE - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
The thing with 3D is that you get headaches because not everyone's eyes are spaced apart at the same distance, while the images the TV shows are one distance only. If that is too different from your eyes your brain has a problem with that and it makes you know it with a headache.You might have the same problem with VR, but i haven't heard of it. Nausea is induced, because your visual and physical senses don't match (it looks like you're on a roller coaster, but you fell like you are sitting still). That is a more difficult fix and you may need to get a "rocking chair".
jim32 - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
I didn't feel nauseous when I tried out Oculus even though I get sick on a boat.mkozakewich - Wednesday, May 6, 2015 - link
There are different lenses, so at least you can set a comfortable viewing distance.If you get a headache when things aren't natural, this probably will be the same.
Mushkins - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
Honestly, I expect this thing to completely flop in the consumer space. Don't get me wrong, it's an awesome piece of technology, but it's just too niche and like consumer 3D there are common health issues (eye strain, nausea, etc). A 3D TV that makes you nauseous is still an awesome TV with the 3D turned off, but you have that problem here and you have a $400 paperweight. And like any peripheral device, application support directly correlates to the size of the install base. No apps = no buyers, and in turn no buyers = no apps. This thing is a really expensive luxury toy, and not much else.jjj - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link
You are too pessimistic about the technology in general but this product might flop.First the price - you can take a 5.5 inch 1080p average quality screen that costs 20$ and maybe 15$ by next year , add a few cheap chips , e lenses and a lot of plastic and make it for less than 50$ to sell it at 99-149$.
Oculus will likely go for higher res, maybe flexible screen, maybe 2 screens so the cost will be higher. They might add the external cam but no need for a high res cam so that will be cheap. All in all no reason for the BOM to be above 100$ ( could be plenty lower) unless they got some crazy controller. So a retail price of 400$ would be outrageous, 200-250$ is far more likely.
200-250$ is a bit high but not terrible .
On the app side, all the mainstream games are the main attraction and then movies and TV made for the normal screen.So they already have more than enough of a market and plenty of time to build on that.
What might kill this first gen product is the external hardware ( it does for me) and the race for higher res and FPS.
Well, kill is relative, if they don't reach 10 mil units per quarter after a few quarters, they failed in my eyes but some might see it as a great success if they ship 1-2 million units per quarter.
The high screen res and high FPS problem is something everybody ignores. Everybody wants it but without thinking about the GPU needed to power it. Sure next year GPUs on 14/16nm will offer a big gain in perf but i really hope Oculus won't go for a 4k screen because requiring a 500$ GPU to use it would be a lot.Even 1440p at 90FPS wouldn't be that cheap on the GPU side.
So Oculus could be hurt because they aimed too high instead of good enough a good price.
Yojimbo - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link
"you can take a 5.5 inch 1080p average quality screen that costs 20$ and maybe 15$ by next year , add a few cheap chips , e lenses and a lot of plastic and make it for less than 50$ to sell it at 99-149$."If it were that easy, I don't think these various companies would be taking years to develop the technology.
jjj - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link
It actually is that easy on the hardware side.ifixit has teardowns for both dev kits, the first one was a 7 inch 1280x800 tablet screen and 4 or so small chips. The second one was using a 5.7 inch 1440p screen (normally used in the Note) and got slightly more complex on the addition of the external cam.
The hard part is head tracking fast enough so on the software side.
The hardware itself is just a screen with lenses in front of it shoved in ski goggles.
As for screen prices ,they are that low for an average screen, more for OLED, higher res and so on. Unlike smartphones, Oculus doesn't need the touch layer so even a plastic OLED 1440p like in the Edge might be just 50$ by next year.
That's what's great about Oculss, it was way simple and cheap.
Akrovah - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link
10 mil per quarter or it's a failure? Really? Not even game consoles have that kind of volume. Even the Playstation 2, one of the best sellign game consoles in hsitory, only averaged 14 mil in a full YEAR and you are going to call Occulus, a much more niche product, a failure if they don't meet that every five months?jjj - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link
Sory but game consoles are a niche when it comes to gaming.They might be popular in the developed world but that's about it.PC gaming on the on the hand has 300 to 700 million gamers, depending on source. Show me a single PC gamer that won't want a good VR headset at a good price.
And after that glasses can go after TVs and pretty much anyone that ever wanted a TV. it offers more for a lot less.
So yes, if they don't sell a hell of a lot of units, it's a fail. And they kinda need to take teh market by storm or others will.
piiman - Saturday, May 9, 2015 - link
"So yes, if they don't sell a hell of a lot of units, it's a fail. And they kinda need to take teh market by storm or others will."Its only a fail if they don't make money on them, and how is someone else going to "take the market by Storm"?
Software/games is what's needed,no Publisher support and they are all dead in the water. Which makes Valves Vive look like a winner since they can write their own stuff if needed, and it looks like they are doing that now, although I'm sure Carmack has a few friend he could call up.
Oh well 2016 will be the year of VR that's for sure.
MamiyaOtaru - Saturday, May 9, 2015 - link
and how many of those hundreds of millions of supposed gamers have the 3d hardware to drive something like this? Obviously some would upgrade, but your potential pool for buyers of the rift looks a lot more like "current owners of high end graphics cards" than it does "everyone who has ever played Minesweeper". It's not that large.MyNuts - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 - link
My eyes dont hurt. I just enjoy it in all its glory. You must wear glasses or have some sort of eye defect. Not ur faylt just ur genetics. I hope this technology doesnt get hindered because of a small percentage of people who get headaches. Same people who cant be fighter pilots.