Oculus vs. Vive 'head 2 head' in elite

[Yololo69]

Personally I don't like the Vive Pre design, with only straps. Also, I have a big concerns about the lighthouse system, as I think if something have to dye quickly it will be those boxes as they include AFAIK an electrical engines running at a specific speed. Thanks to the Vive Pre tests made at the CES I learned than the first generation was noisy and even vibrating a lot. Of course they have been improved and they will probably be again before release. In any case, from all VR competitors, that's the only system including electrical engines to make it work. The weakest parts?

Also, how do those things turn ON and OFF? through the power supply? Always in standby mode and wake up wireless? etc. Too many thing unknown for now, to me at least

 

[Thoemse]

I did preorder a CV1 because HTC did not keep it's announced release date. That being said i don't think the VIVE straps will be an issue. This next prototype looks a lot like they don't want tpo put their cards on the table yet. It is ugly and it has a bad headstrap. It is a prototype. I expect the consumer Vive to look very stylish and having a similar solution to mount as oculus does. I expect them to wow the crowd close before february 29th.

If i am wrong and the new prototype is what they release - good luck to them.

 

[SnugglySocks]

I did preorder a CV1 because HTC did not keep it's announced release date.

exactly the way oculus did:

http://www.dailytech.com/FacebookBa...+2016+Valve+and+HTC+Salivate/article37250.htm

I do agree that the CV1 looks a lot better than the vive-pre.

 

[vic]

I have Dk2 and tried the vive. My opinion/decision was made instantly when I tried it. Walking around strapped to a cable is useless/unpractical in the end PERIOD! You absolutely need a person next to you full-time watching out for that cable and there is no way around that now. What are you vive people (who plan on playing walking around games) do? hire a full-time person to watchover you?
VR while walking in a room only becomes a real consumer big seller once it becomes totally wireless. I think this obvious.

Oculus has the smart winning strategy for now!!

 

[Graywolfe]

Disclaimer, I currently have an Oculus Rift DK2, love it to bits and I have pre-ordered an Oculus CV-1. That hopefully flags up my potential bias.

In following the development of both solutions it seems that they are primarily targeting different usage scenarios. Oculus are quite open about targeting a seated experience, at least at the moment. The Vive is aimed at a more mobile standing experience. This difference of approach has resulted in different implementations.

For me at least the Oculus approach best fits with what I currently use the DK2 for and what I expect to use the CV-1 for; cockpit games (space, flight, driving, etc.) and this has been a major decider for me. I see a standing experience as having significant challenges with the current state of the technology, with the physical space requirements and with the need to have the real world intrude on the VR for safety reasons.

For example I have no requirement for any sort of camera in a HMD. For me anything that 'leaks' the real world into VR detracts from the experience and I just don't want it. This in itself wouldn't put me off buying such a headset since I'm sure I could disable or otherwise configure things such that this intrusion didn't happen, but I think it's indicative of the divergence of approach between the Rift and the Vive.

Watching interviews with Palmer Luckey about the Rift I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he's saying. When I see interviews with people associated with the Vive I find that I'm not agreeing with a lot of what they say. This doesn't mean that that Vive is not going to be a awesome product just that I see the approach behind the Rift as more likely to deliver something that works well with my expected usage.

As a result, if people are contemplating buying into the current VR technologies there are worse things that they could do than watch the interviews with the staff of the relevant companies. The approaches they are taking and the experiences that they are primarily targeting are relevant. Not just the technologies and capabilities of the different hardware implementations.

 

[thesnowdog]

I agree with Graywolfe regarding not wanting to see parts of the real world in virtual reality, that's a real presence-killer right there. Most importantly I'm planning on spending the vast majority of my time in VR sitting on my in my comfy 2 seater sofa lol.

I also much prefer the look and functionality of the Touch controllers compared to the Vive controllers.

I'm definitely leaning towards getting an Oculus Rift over a HTC Vive so far. It's also highly likely that the Vive is going to be more expensive too.

I just hope that Frontier can sort out support for the Rift that dried up after Runtime 0.7 was released when that Extended Mode was removed.

 

[Lestenio]

Interesting comparison
http://www.pcgamer.com/tested-oculus-rift-vs-htc-vive-pre/

 

[Oheck]

I have Dk2 and tried the vive. My opinion/decision was made instantly when I tried it. Walking around strapped to a cable is useless/unpractical in the end PERIOD! You absolutely need a person next to you full-time watching out for that cable and there is no way around that now. What are you vive people (who plan on playing walking around games) do? hire a full-time person to watchover you?
VR while walking in a room only becomes a real consumer big seller once it becomes totally wireless. I think this obvious.

Oculus has the smart winning strategy for now!!

You know, you can tell an Oculus fan from a mile away. I've never seen so much effort put forth to dislike something. Just an fyi. Oculus has a cable too. (GASP!) It's true. Do you think FD supports the Vive now because it is a worse product then Oculus?? Give the technology its due. Try to be objective towards VR. You don't ABSOLUTELY need a person next to you full time watching out for that cable. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

You know what my main concern is regarding VR? Is that both companies have made their product so high end that they have taken their product right out of the mainstream market. Include the hardware requirements and its even further out of reach to all except enthusiast. That does not help VR. That certainly doesn't help make it palatable to developers who are unsure to even develop for VR, when they know their customer base is a small margin of gamers/enthusiast.

 

[Mazhurg]

At this point, it looks like the ball for mass market achievement is really in Sony's camp.

As above, the price of entry on the PC scene is niche at this point, and probably won't get any better with HTC. Sure, you can state early adoption all you want (actually early adoption was the DK2 but meh...) if the product turn out to be niche, then it will stay there as it will not get the support it deserve (no money).

It's funny to think that Sony - if they play their cards right -, with underpowered but optimized hardware could actually be the device that will make VR a reality.

As for me, I'll keep that DK2 until pried from my cold dead fingers as it works well enough for what I do with it, for a gen or 2 yet or until the devices becomes commodities like monitors.

 

[Oheck]

At this point, it looks like the ball for mass market achievement is really in Sony's camp.

As above, the price of entry on the PC scene is niche at this point, and probably won't get any better with HTC. Sure, you can state early adoption all you want (actually early adoption was the DK2 but meh...) if the product turn out to be niche, then it will stay there as it will not get the support it deserve (no money).

It's funny to think that Sony - if they play their cards right -, with underpowered but optimized hardware could actually be the device that will make VR a reality.

As for me, I'll keep that DK2 until pried from my cold dead fingers as it works well enough for what I do with it, for a gen or 2 yet or until the devices becomes commodities like monitors.

Yep, i've been saying the same thing. They handed Sony a huge opportunity to undercut them price wise. If they stick to their earlier estimates that it will cost the same as a console (around 400), and it is optimized for the PS4; people can just purchase it and plug it in and play with no worries about hardware requirements....thats pretty huge right there.

 

[jabokai]

You know, you can tell an Oculus fan from a mile away. I've never seen so much effort put forth to dislike something. Just an fyi. Oculus has a cable too. (GASP!) It's true.

The difference is, and the point of the person you quoted, is that HTC/Valve are pushing the room-wide tracking with multiple sensors, standing and walking around that space experience, as a major selling point. What the person you quoted was suggesting (and I agree) is that it will be a relatively poor experience unless you do something about the damn cable. If/when Oculus start pushing the same thing it will have exactly the same problem - thing is, it is entirely focused on the seated experience, the right experience, given the cable issue.

From a personal point of view I actually don't care if they come up with a cable-less option as that introduces and even worse (for me) issue - batteries and charging. Of course, as time progresses and we get batteries that weigh next to nothing and last at least a full day's constant use then I'll start getting interested.

As above, the price of entry on the PC scene is niche at this point, and probably won't get any better with HTC. Sure, you can state early adoption all you want (actually early adoption was the DK2 but meh...) if the product turn out to be niche, then it will stay there as it will not get the support it deserve (no money).

It's funny to think that Sony - if they play their cards right -, with underpowered but optimized hardware could actually be the device that will make VR a reality.

The price of the PC/Rift packages in the US are pretty damned good - $1500 gets you the Rift and the PC capable of running it. But yes, Sony have the opportunity to be a bigger mass market driver than any of the PC brands for several years. That's good for VR in general - more software development, etc. But the experience, from all reports, will not match the Rift/Vive on a high-end PC and some of us tech crazies will just pay what's needed for the better experience.

 

[SnugglySocks]

I'm not sure the speculation about Sony having the lions share of the success is going to be true either. Although I have not been searching for it I have seen very little media coverage of PSVR. and that is part of the thing. it is only for the playstation. I can't name any technologies that have broken out from being tied to a console to go on to success in market sectors beyond. The only one that has come close seems to be the kinect, but that was mainly diy hacked uses as well. So I feel PSVR will have its fifteen mins, much like playstation move or the PSeye (dragging them up I know )

you can sit down with vive, you can stand up with oculus. no difference there really, just different tactics on the sales pitch. But going back to the core of why I started this thread. If one of the headsets operates smoother and has clearer visuals, that is the one that is going to 'win'. I don't think system costs are really a factor, enthusiast, over-clockers, gamers in general, will always be close to if not on the bleeding edge of the gfx hardware. This demographic (which I think is considerable) will be the one that makes or breaks the success of this initial iteration of VR. The next iteration, with kinks worked out and volume pricing being more established, will be when the rest of the mainstream consumers will get on board and at this point, the winner from the last round could easily be ousted.

it's all still up for grabs. Oculus have stumbled and not managed to make it out as far ahead of anyone else otherwise they could have runaway with it. Vive may price themselves into low sales and PSVR just doesn't seem to have any presence.

exciting

 

[grammatonfeather]

To the guy who thinks Sony could lead the way with VR:

The sony is actually the worst platform for VR. The hardware is under-powered and antiquated. New buyers aren't going to buy a PS4 + Morpheus unless the VR is very cheap. Sony platform is locked-down ensuring you will only ever play casual/arcade titles and some made for VR movies. You can forget educational and user-created VR experiences. You can forget serious simulations. Mobile VR is in a much stronger position than anything Sony create. Mobile VR is constantly evolving. People refresh their mobile devices frequently (hardware refresh is much more frequent than any games console) and the VR headset can cost less than $20. PC VR will lead the way because it's not locked-down. Users and small companies can create titles. No shortage of simulators and educational and the best range of peripheral hardware (HOTAS/Wheels etc).

Sony is actually clueless about VR. For years their idea of VR was the HMZ priced at $1500. Based on 90's technology with only an OLED upgrade. That was Sony's idea of VR... Until Palmer came along.

Sony represents the toy VR platform.

 

[Mazhurg]

I'm not sure the speculation about Sony having the lions share of the success is going to be true either. Although I have not been searching for it I have seen very little media coverage of PSVR. and that is part of the thing. it is only for the playstation. I can't name any technologies that have broken out from being tied to a console to go on to success in market sectors beyond. The only one that has come close seems to be the kinect, but that was mainly diy hacked uses as well. So I feel PSVR will have its fifteen mins, much like playstation move or the PSeye (dragging them up I know )

you can sit down with vive, you can stand up with oculus. no difference there really, just different tactics on the sales pitch. But going back to the core of why I started this thread. If one of the headsets operates smoother and has clearer visuals, that is the one that is going to 'win'. I don't think system costs are really a factor, enthusiast, over-clockers, gamers in general, will always be close to if not on the bleeding edge of the gfx hardware. This demographic (which I think is considerable) will be the one that makes or breaks the success of this initial iteration of VR. The next iteration, with kinks worked out and volume pricing being more established, will be when the rest of the mainstream consumers will get on board and at this point, the winner from the last round could easily be ousted.

it's all still up for grabs. Oculus have stumbled and not managed to make it out as far ahead of anyone else otherwise they could have runaway with it. Vive may price themselves into low sales and PSVR just doesn't seem to have any presence.

exciting

You are not searching very hard. Just google playstationVR review for lots of links and writings. Having said that, short of the details and processing power that can only come from PC's, VR "Presence" has more to do with making what one see "believable and consistent" it's not really about complexity of details. Just about every review I see of folks that have tried it laud it's performance within those limitations.

To the guy who thinks Sony could lead the way with VR:

The sony is actually the worst platform for VR. The hardware is under-powered and antiquated. New buyers aren't going to buy a PS4 + Morpheus unless the VR is very cheap. Sony platform is locked-down ensuring you will only ever play casual/arcade titles and some made for VR movies. You can forget educational and user-created VR experiences. You can forget serious simulations. Mobile VR is in a much stronger position than anything Sony create. Mobile VR is constantly evolving. People refresh their mobile devices frequently (hardware refresh is much more frequent than any games console) and the VR headset can cost less than $20. PC VR will lead the way because it's not locked-down. Users and small companies can create titles. No shortage of simulators and educational and the best range of peripheral hardware (HOTAS/Wheels etc).

Sony is actually clueless about VR. For years their idea of VR was the HMZ priced at $1500. Based on 90's technology with only an OLED upgrade. That was Sony's idea of VR... Until Palmer came along.

Sony represents the toy VR platform.

Rich. The PS4 has actually more than 36 millions installed user base already, every one of them capable of running the device without any other upgrade. You also obviously do not own, nor know much about the Playstation - and by extension consoles - ecosystem. Casual and arcade is mostly the realm of phones. Both the PS and Xbox can and do run just about every titles released on the PC (albeit with lower graphics), and some of the best RPGs I've seen have been PS4 exclusives (Left behind). Also, with mobile VR even as that ecosystem is indeed evolving - the devices are running on batteries and that will always ensure short and casual until and unless battery technology changes drastically.

For sure, user created experiences are a PC realm only at this point, however there is nothing stopping Sony from having serious simulations nor education on their platform if they so choose (and the users demanded it). Small companies can and do create and release titles on the PS4. As a matter of fact, many of the greenlight titles available though Steam are also available on the PS4.

There is always the risk that Sony (or any other vendor BTW) misses the boat but I do have a sneaky feeling that Sony - though the current leadership - gets it this time and will smartly market the thing. But again time will tell as none of the devices are in the wild yet.

Are Oculus and HTC top dog at this point (on the consumer side) - it appears that for quality and performance the answer is yes even as every consumer VR devices other than the simple ones on phones devices have yet to be released but cost of entry is really what will make the difference.

Also let's be honest; the market size on the PC side, with the current requirements and cost of the upcoming HDMs (and upgrade requirements) is minuscule at best.

BTW, I own a PS4, an almost enthusiast PC (I74790/R9-290x2), Steam Link, DK2 and use all of them equally, and will probably get both a PlaystationVR and one of the PC HDM (either Oculus or HTC - the jury is still out).

 

[SnugglySocks]

You are not searching very hard. Just google playstationVR review for lots of links and writings.

That was part of the point. if I look at media sites, I can't escape articles about Viv and Occy (nothing on StarBreeze, I have to search for those ) PlaystationVR just doesn't seem to feature anywheree prominently, so they are not exactly driving sales with this tactic.

 

[Arithon]

The sensors are now wireless, and smaller. And I wish people would stop saying that the Vive requires a 15' area. That is not some minimum requirement. It can handle sitting, or standing, or up to a 15' square area.

The photos I've seen, which include the front-facing camera edition and motion controllers don't look much smaller. 6cm instead of 8cm?


(old sensor left, new sensor right)


In operation they are lit with bright (power?) LEDs which are far from discrete. I'd not care, but my wife wouldn't accept them mounted in the bedroom.

They had to be mounted on opposing walls for the prototype, which I don't imagine has changed.

If 15 sq ft is not correct, can you clarify how much square footage would be required to tripod-mount the sensors so they function, with room to operate a PC inside the sensor area?

 

[grammatonfeather]

You are not searching very hard. Just google playstationVR review for lots of links and writings. Having said that, short of the details and processing power that can only come from PC's, VR "Presence" has more to do with making what one see "believable and consistent" it's not really about complexity of details. Just about every review I see of folks that have tried it laud it's performance within those limitations.



Rich. The PS4 has actually more than 36 millions installed user base already, every one of them capable of running the device without any other upgrade. You also obviously do not own, nor know much about the Playstation - and by extension consoles - ecosystem. Casual and arcade is mostly the realm of phones. Both the PS and Xbox can and do run just about every titles released on the PC (albeit with lower graphics), and some of the best RPGs I've seen have been PS4 exclusives (Left behind). Also, with mobile VR even as that ecosystem is indeed evolving - the devices are running on batteries and that will always ensure short and casual until and unless battery technology changes drastically.

For sure, user created experiences are a PC realm only at this point, however there is nothing stopping Sony from having serious simulations nor education on their platform if they so choose (and the users demanded it). Small companies can and do create and release titles on the PS4. As a matter of fact, many of the greenlight titles available though Steam are also available on the PS4.

There is always the risk that Sony (or any other vendor BTW) misses the boat but I do have a sneaky feeling that Sony - though the current leadership - gets it this time and will smartly market the thing. But again time will tell as none of the devices are in the wild yet.

Are Oculus and HTC top dog at this point (on the consumer side) - it appears that for quality and performance the answer is yes even as every consumer VR devices other than the simple ones on phones devices have yet to be released but cost of entry is really what will make the difference.

Also let's be honest; the market size on the PC side, with the current requirements and cost of the upcoming HDMs (and upgrade requirements) is minuscule at best.

BTW, I own a PS4, an almost enthusiast PC (I74790/R9-290x2), Steam Link, DK2 and use all of them equally, and will probably get both a PlaystationVR and one of the PC HDM (either Oculus or HTC - the jury is still out).

How many serious sims were there for PS1?

How many serious sims were there for PS2?

How many serious sims were there for PS3?

"Both the PS and Xbox can and do run just about every titles released on the PC " << I didn't realise DCS world was on either of those consoles. Shows how much I know. iRacing too eh? Titans of Space?

It's not just cost of entry that will make the difference and Palmer understands this.

"Both the PS and Xbox can and do run just about every titles released on the PC " << Absolute nonsense.

Sony is the company that told everyone the PS3 would be a "supercomputer in your home" and control your home appliances. What actually happened was they locked the system down over the years when they saw people were using it for tasks other than games.

 

[Distance]

The PS4 has actually more than 36 millions installed user base already, every one of them capable of running the device without any other upgrade.

Calling this. The psvr will come with an extra box to do the processing for the headset, that's what a lot of the price will go on. None of the current gen consoles are powerful enough on their own to do "good" vr. They both struggle to hit 30fps at 1080 as it is.

 

[Mazhurg]

Calling this. The psvr will come with an extra box to do the processing for the headset, that's what a lot of the price will go on. None of the current gen consoles are powerful enough on their own to do "good" vr. They both struggle to hit 30fps at 1080 as it is.

What is there to call?

What I said is that there will only be 1 item to purchase -> The PlastationVR, or a single cost. There will be no need to purchase extra. Of course the kit will include a breakout box.

 

[Distance]

The way you phrased it made it out like the consoles were perfectly capable of running vr as they are now.

I personally hope the psvr does well but there's always going to be a big difference in quality between phone, console and pc vr. Right now the best thing for consumer vr is good phone and console vr but in the long run the current pc quality will come down to affordable levels.