Oculus Rift S

[Thaldor]

40 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

This has much better tracking than WMR. More cameras to both increase tracking volume and reduce occlusion. And I don't see the huge need for being able to track you scratching your butt.

As said in the Tested video, the tracking will be cut from even crossing your arms or having just anything blocking the controller or not enough points is seen from the controller (controller being too close to the HMD or even partially covered). So basicly it's the same as with WMR controllers. It probably wouldn't cost a lot if they were to really improve the tracking and use same kind of system as HTC uses where the controller tracks itself through accelerometers and gravity sensors and uses the same tracking as the HMD just to check controllers position from time to time. But then again even a hinge would have been "too expensive" for them so couple accelerometers would have probably made the device 400$ and drive away every single developer and user because the device would have been too expensive.

 

And I can really see the trouble with needing direct line of sight with HMD and controllers. Something like Blade and Sorcery the back slots might be unreachable with Rift S (also generally games that have backbags or other stuff that requires reaching over your shoulder), even unholstering weapons from the waist might be trouble some if you want to do it right (across your body, right hand weapon goes to the left side of the hip). Almost every game where it might be needed to look to the different way than having your arms pointed (like some shooters, look to the left but keep your hands to the right ready to shoot, so it might cut the tracking).

 

This really feels like Facebook trying to make Oculus profitable. The Rift S is basicly the same HMD as Quest, but instead of having mobile processor, memory and all that stuff, it has a camera and connector for PC. Both are priced the same but quite clearly Rift S has way higher margins (at least I can't see how the few differences would be more expensive than having mobile hardware build in and the higher resolution OLED screen). On the other hand Rift S has better hand tracking than Quest, but only because camera placement (Quest requiring hands to be strictly in front of the HMD while Rift S requires hands to be in front of player or sligthly beside player). But either way it's kind of hard to imagine how Rift S can be at the same price as Quest, either Facebook is really ripping people off or they are selling Quests with loss.

[Sakkura]

5 hours ago, Thaldor said:

As said in the Tested video, the tracking will be cut from even crossing your arms or having just anything blocking the controller or not enough points is seen from the controller (controller being too close to the HMD or even partially covered). So basicly it's the same as with WMR controllers.

No, it isn't the same. It has 5 cameras instead of 2, making it much less likely to lose tracking.

 

5 hours ago, Thaldor said:

This really feels like Facebook trying to make Oculus profitable. The Rift S is basicly the same HMD as Quest, but instead of having mobile processor, memory and all that stuff, it has a camera and connector for PC. Both are priced the same but quite clearly Rift S has way higher margins (at least I can't see how the few differences would be more expensive than having mobile hardware build in and the higher resolution OLED screen). On the other hand Rift S has better hand tracking than Quest, but only because camera placement (Quest requiring hands to be strictly in front of the HMD while Rift S requires hands to be in front of player or sligthly beside player). But either way it's kind of hard to imagine how Rift S can be at the same price as Quest, either Facebook is really ripping people off or they are selling Quests with loss.

Obviously not. They're spending a lot on content and of course R&D, they won't be profitable in the short term.

 

It's about realizing people don't want to pay $600+ for VR, and eliminating other barriers such as having to place external tracking sensors or base stations.

 

If you want to compare to mobile, you might as well compare to the Go. Same screen. Your tracking comments are also wrong again, Quest has a wider hand tracking volume than just frontal.

 

I do think this has higher margins at launch than Quest though. But that's just room for price drops.

[williamcll]

80fps is going to be a turnoff for some people.

[Paranoid Kami]

So, it's worse and costs more?

[Sakkura]

20 hours ago, Paranoid Kami said:

So, it's worse and costs more?

It's better and costs half as much as the Rift used to, with room for further drops.

 

(but there are tradeoffs and the overall improvement isn't huge)

[Chett_Manly]

1 hour ago, Tedny said:

what problem with PC can't run it. That thing made only for high end PC or for future pc's 

In games at that resolution, I wonder if you could just turn the resolution down in games though, and enjoy the massive resolution advantage for videos and photos.

 

And even with the resolution lower, will it look better on the HP with upscaling and less visually noticeable pixel grid.

[Thaldor]

21 hours ago, Paranoid Kami said:

So, it's worse and costs more?

I wouldn't say it's worse, it's just different. Comparing Rift and Rift S there's some improvements but also tradeoffs and those are quite subjective. Like the handtracking, while I think it's tradeoff and generally worser because Rift S has more occlusion zones, some others think it's improvement because the general inside-out tracking. Audio is definetly worser but at the same time bigger resolution screen is always improvement, but in my opinion that is also to be seen stuff because OLED->LCD and dropping the refresh rate. Generally if you ask me to choose from Rift and Rift S I would go with Rift any moment and even more if Rifts price (at least used market price) drops because Rift S. And if I was to buy Rift S I would wait quite some time just for the price to drop because there's a lot of air in it at the launch (I would say easily 100-200$ comparing to Quest which is launched around the same time with the same price but has probably more expensive screen and that Snapdragon and all the mobile hardware is definetly more expensive than tethering hardware (for those saying "R&D and stuff", also Quest has the same costs, probably even more because more hardware to test and develope)).

 

But generally Rift S is just different. I would say for common mass Rift S might be more compelling because easy setup and no need for more "special" hardware, but for general VR developers the Rift might be better because closer to Vive game designwise and if you want to make good support for the "cheaper" headsets it's probably better to get some cheap WMR headset for that because Rift S kind of drops in the middle at least trackingwise.

[DragonTamer1]

I think this would have been better if they still planned on selling the regular Rift with the Rift S or at least let the old tracking towers work as extra tracking. I have quite a few VR games that require tracking behind me or in areas where that cameras just can't see. I also don't want someone using my POV while I look at VR porn.

[Unixsystem]

I totally get the advantages to inside out tracking in terms of portability and ease of setup but why on earth did they need to make it incompatible with the existing sensors? Ship it with internal cameras by default, and then keep selling the sensors for people that don't want to deal with the inherently interior tracking that you get with inside out. 

 

That, combined with the lower refresh rate make this absolutely a downgrade for me. I love my CV1, and it's beat up to the point where I wouldn't mind a new headset, but honestly I wouldn't take this even if it was a free trade in.