the-pi-guy said:
potato_hamster said:
The Oculus Quest tracks as well as the Oculus Rift with no need for external sensors? I know it has a sensor-less solution, but I also know there are severe limitations in terms of maintaining orientation without fixed reference points. I suspect this solution will suffer from every other sensor-less solution - low fidelity, less accurate motion tracking, and the need the need to recalibrate often. The Rift, Vive and PSVR don't use fixed references for fun - they're far more expensive to produce - they do so because they're magnitudes better than sensorless solutions. In the Case of the Oculus go, it's only going to be able to read the controllers when they're within direct line of sight of the sensors, and that's going to lead to more issues. So like I said, Samsung Gear VR territory, this won't be much better than using an internal gyroscope of a cell phone.
|
The Oculus Quest works by making a 3D map of the environment. It doesn't work by using gyroscopes like the cheaper options.
Really, I don't know how close it is to the Rift, but it'll probably be closer than we expect.
potato_hamster said:
Okay, so you're going to make ridiculous claims. A $400 wireless VR headset will never perform as well as a $400 tethered headset made developed during the same time period. Going with a wireless solution means sacrificing everything else, since you know, a VR device that's totally self-contained has to make sacrifices in order to be self-contained vs something that delegates the processing to another device. To be clear, you think most prospective VR buyers would prefer a wireless VR headset over one that does everything else VR related better? Because if not, that means people are going to have to pay extra to get that same quality of VR experience on a wireless headset. There's no two ways about it.
|
Correct.
But the technology is changing very quickly. There are already headsets with 2 4K screens. We might not be that far off, of wired headsets disappearing completely. (Relatively speaking)
potato_hamster said:
Well i mean, it kinda is an unreasonable assumption... the Wii U is now 6 years old. I would hope that after 16 years that tech would advance enough that you could make a wii u-like device for cheaper than the Wii U? But using the Wii U's BOM? It might actually be more expensive to make as there may be critical components inside it like processors that are no longer produced in 10 years since you know, no one has a use for them any more, meaning that some components might cost most to produce in 10 years than they do today. Perhaps you should look into instances where companies try to resurrect and start re-making 10-15-20 year old electronics and find out they actually cost more to make today than they did 20 years ago. it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Let me give you a realistic example. let's take the PS1 classic. That undoubtedly shares almost zero components in common with the original PS1, but also doesn't play the same discs, use the same memory cards, or use the same controllers. But let's say Sony wanted to actually re-release the PS1 in all of it's classic glory, with 100% compatibility with all old PS1 games, which likely means exact replication. There are a pile of custom chips in that PS1, along with controller ports, memory card ports etc that are no longer made, and that might mean that fabricating them today means creating them at today's rates, that may require old fabrication processes that are actually more expensive to employ today than it was i decades ago. it could mean that producing a PS1 today using the same technology that the original PS1 used costs more today than it did in 1998.
|
You're certainly correct.
I'm not necessarily saying using the exact same materials.
Certain aspects of the headset are very likely to drop in price. Other aspects aren't as likely.
potato_hamster said:
You think the only reason that poople are buying Oculus Rift or HTC Vive over other headsets is brand awareness and marketing, and not because, you know, they're better VR headsets and better ecosystems with better games libraries? If you say so. I'm not sure how you think devices that are pretty much not stocked at retail stores are getting sales off of brand awareness, as if HTC and Oculus are recognizable brands to the average consumer. I'd say most VR buyers are people that have done their homework, which means they're probablly looking up reviews, most all of which put HTC Vive and Oculus Rift at the top of the PC VR pile by far.
|
The HTC Vive works through Steam VR. All of its games are playable on any PC headset.
The only real advantage they have over the others is somewhat superior tracking.
Oculus Rift is sold at Best Buy, the Vive is available at gamestop.
potato_hamster said:
Another big reason for not buying VR: People prefer to game on televisions with gamepads, and don't think VR adds to that in a meaningful way
Another big reason: Motion sickness. Some people flat out can't use VR.
|
Correct. People are working extensively on figuring out how to handle the latter.
potato_hamster said:
And again, if people have to use a product in order to get the experience necessary to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.
|
The thing you don't seem to understand is, I think you're probably right.
potato_hamster said:
... you do realize that your phones accelerometer is "an actual tracking system", right? Sure it's very basic, and not very reliable or accurate, but it is "an actual tracking system".
|
Sure.
|
Essay Pro