[haydenlee]

immersive concerts - TheWaveVR [0]

reinvented museums - TiltBrush [1]

court-side sporting events - NextVR [2]

Not to mention architecture [3], communication [4], collaboration [5], medicine [6], 3d modeling [7], game development [8], film [9] and the myriad of other industries I'm forgetting. Also if you haven't tried any of the latest games on Oculus Rift or Vive you're really missing out. They've gotten incredible since the consumer launch last year.

[0] http://thewavevr.com/ [1] https://tiltbrush.com/sketches [2] http://nextvr.com [3] http://insitevr.com/ [4] https://web.facebook.com/spaces [5] http://bigscreenvr.com/ [6] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601911/better-than-opioid... [7] https://www.oculus.com/medium/ [8] https://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/12/15/editorvr-experimental-b... [9] https://www.oculus.com/story-studio/films/henry/

*Disclaimer: I work or have worked for a few of these co's.

[aaron-lebo]

I've found the gaming experiences pretty mediocre.

It's $900 + big clunky thing on your head vs $500 for a really nice 4k monitor.

Something like Onward is pretty special for its realism, but its not a better game than Rainbow Six was 20 years ago. There are some other fun games but the novelty wears off quickly. It's like a really expensive ($1300 setup) Wii. The current experiences aren't worth the money.

[mattnewport]

For me there's no comparison between the experience of firing a gun or a bow and arrow in VR with hand tracked controls vs in a traditional game with a monitor and a mouse or gamepad. Even virtual target practice with very little 'game' around it is pretty fun I find.

The industry is still figuring out how to create gameplay that takes advantage of VR rather than just porting over gameplay mechanics from traditional games. There are also limitations on how ambitious VR games can get given the current size of the market. There's some very compelling experiences starting to appear already though in my opinion.

I think it's a mistake to put too much emphasis on the current relatively high cost of hardware as a guide to the future potential of the medium. We know that price will come down and if you compare it in real terms to the cost of early PCs it already looks quite affordable.

[aaron-lebo]

I agree with you and expect experiences to get better as the industry learns.

With nothing to back this up, I think the VR headset is a mass market item at $400 (or the price of a console) and better tech (mainly lighter headset, slightly improved panels). I guess with that belief the question is will the industry continue to subsidize those hardware improvements while developers figure things out? Or perhaps VR hardware will improve regardless of gaming success.

[georgeecollins]

VR hardware will continue to improve because it drives all sorts of demand for chips and software, and nobody wants to be left behind. The Hacker News audience may be jaded about it, but it still is interesting to average people. It's just too expensive and too confusing, and the software isn't very good yet. I have no idea how popular VR will but I know better headsets will come out in the next two years and prices will come down.

[moosingin3space]

I believe VR will become a mass market item when you can buy a "VR console" for $400-600 -- until then, the effort required to set up a VR gaming system will be regarded as "not worth it" by much of the market.

[Impossible]

One issue with VR is the market is so small, the quality of even the best games is relatively low. Onward is basically made by one person, and although you cannot directly compare Onward's development with Rainbow 6 in 1998, mostly because of easy and cheap availability of 3D engines and assets, the original Rainbow 6 had a significantly larger team, budget and sold roughly 10x (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six_(vi... Onward has sold so far(http://steamspy.com/app/496240)...

This might be an unfixable flaw in the VR market, but really all of this stuff seems like good business opportunities to me. If what people want out of VR is cheaper, better hardware and better games, and there isn't a fundamental flaw with the concept of VR, of course.

[stale2002]

VR is the same as any other gaming market.

It is a two sided market, with a chicken and egg problem.

Gamemakers don't want to invest in a market with very few consumers, and consumers don't want to invest in a headset with very few games.

[JauntTrooper]

Which is why console makers need to make a few blockbuster games to encourage adoption.

The Nintendo Entertainment System came with Super Mario Brothers and Duck Hunt at no additional cost. Sega made the Genesis and Sonic the Hedgehog.

[haydenlee]

Going back to 2D games like CS:Go after playing Onward is such a let-down personally. I'd choose Onward over them any day of the week. The adrenaline you get when bullets are actually flying over your head continues to blow me away.

To each their own.

[aaron-lebo]

Heh. I still find CSGO horribly addictive after 16+ years off and on CS games and I attribute it to CS's core mechanics being so great. It's not an "experience" like the most recent Battlefield but the gameplay carries it.

Onward is a vanilla game that's improved because of the "experience" of VR (and yes, it's very cool), but I'd take better gameplay any day. The game that finally combines gameplay with VR, that'll be exciting.

[ptenk]

Completely agree. CSGO any day. If they port it to VR, then I'll be sold

[whicks]

> It's $900

The Oculus Rift is $500, $598 with the Touch controllers and and extra sensor.[1]

[1]: https://www.oculus.com/cart/

[aaron-lebo]

It's $800 + tax for the Vive (you probably want to buy some light stands, too).

What's the Rift at that price missing compared to the Vive?

[drzaiusapelord]

There's a real Hyundai/Honda relationship here. They're similar products but the Vive has a slight edge as the more premium VR headset. The lighthouse based tracking is rock-solid while the CV based tracking of the Rift has been historically iffy. Worse, you'll need to spring for a 3rd camera if you want to get serious about roomscale. So that's another $79.

The Vive already has an accessory ecosystem as companies are more willing to invest in the more 'open' system. You can buy a thinner cable, various comfort gaskets, a complete wireless solution (only in China for now), non-controller trackers to attach to your body or objects in your playspace (still mostly devs doing this), a foveated rendering plugin (just anounced), etc.

You get a slightly wider FOV and a lot more room if you wear glasses. Also a built-in camera, which is a little gimmicky, but a godsend if you want to move a chair, read a text message, move the cat, etc without taking your headset off.

You're also supporting Valve and SteamVR which does not engage in the dirty business of exclusives or "walled garden" approaches like the Facebook/Oculus model. There are also privacy issue with the Oculus software. Even when its not running it has a encrypted connection to Facebook's server constantly.

Lastly, it seems to be the dev favorite. A few of the betas I've been involved with have been Vive-only.

That said, the Vive needs a price cut. It occasionally gets $100 off. I'm hoping they make that permanent.

[agar]

Sigh. Each HMD has pros and cons. You do the industry a disservice by warping facts.

Lighthouse tracking is indeed excellent, and tracks a larger volume. However, the Rift's sensor approach is /currently/ almost indistinguishable from Vive's tracking. Its historical performance, significantly hampered by a bad software update, has no relevance to someone considering an HMD today.

A third sensor is only $59, not $79. Saying "worse, you'll need to spring for..." implies this is somehow a severe negative, when the reality is that the extra cost of a third sensor still leaves the Rift over $100 less than a Vive (the magnitude of price difference depends on shipping costs and how you value the bundles of free software).

Again, while Lighthouse tracking can be considered "more premium", the general consensus is that the Rift has more fit and finish, is significantly lighter in the front and thus more balanced, has better optics (larger sweet spot and less screen door effect), and the convenient integrated audio (which can be removed if you have high-end headphones) all lead to it being thought of as "more premium" in other ways. The Vive's design, while exceedingly functional, is more "hacker chic" than "honed design".

Of course, the above positives on the Rift are traded off by a slightly smaller field of view, a somewhat dimmer screen, and less compatibility with glasses vs. the Vive.

Additionally, complaining about the cost of a third camera is disingenuous when you then talk about all of the other incremental (added cost) options available to the Vive. Some will come to Rift (e.g., wireless), some bring the Vive to parity (e.g., thinner cable, comfort gaskets, and [unmentioned] a more comfortable head strap with integrated audio), and some are truly cool (e.g., eye tracking and trackers) for those wishing to really be at the cutting edge of VR. But all significantly increase the cost delta.

Finally, implying something nefarious about the "encrypted connection to Facebook's server" is really beneath the level of discourse I expect from HN. The Oculus software checks for updates over a TLS-encrypted session - that is all, as has been confirmed by network analysis. Frankly, I would be upset if it didn't use encryption to protect my information.

The Vive is a fine product, and stands on its own. You do not need to provide misleading or biased information about its competitor to promote it.

The fact is, both HMDs are great. Do you have a 15'x15' space? Buy a Vive. Is price a factor, or do you run on lower-end hardware? Buy a Rift.

Otherwise, try them both, see which fits your face better, see which trade-offs work for you, and buy the one that makes you happy.

You can't go wrong, and VR is SPECTACULAR.

[greggman]

Vive's works with multiple people in the same space, Rift's does not. So there is a relevance to someone considering an HDM today.

There are VR experiences were 2+ people are in the same sim in the same space. There are also VR spaces (arcades, tradeshows) where if there are 2 rifts near each other (2 adjacent booths) the rifts interfere with each other

[TwoBit]

Rift is still cheaper, and wims on a number of other fronts, especially quality of applications. Optics are better, less screen door, sharper to edge of view vs Vive which gets blurry. Oculus controllers are clearly better.

The fact that you bring up Facebook shows that you are a technology zealot, and such people are always adverse to facts.

[mattnewport]

Vive tracking is better for room scale (Oculus doesn't handle facing away from the cameras well in a standard two camera setup and three camera tracking is still a bit experimental, plus it can be trickier to get the floor calibrated at the right position).

In most other respects Oculus is a bit better than Vive IMO: better ergonomics/comfort on both the Rift headset and Touch controllers, built in headphones (a big plus for convenience and comfort over the Vive), easier setup, slightly better optics, better handling of dropped frames thanks to timewarp.

[hesdeadjim]

Oh man they aren't even comparable. The tracking on the Vive is for all intents and purposes, perfect. It is truly room-scale and the headset and controllers have sub-millimeter tracking resolution in a space up to 15x15'.

The Oculus on the other hand uses image sensors with a limited field of view, so it is much easier to lose tracking on your hands when you move quickly, bend over, or turn around. They will sell you a third sensor to expand tracking to 360 degrees, but at that point you are basically buying a shitty Vive.

[haydenlee]

Most people I speak to find the Oculus Rift much more comfortable and the addition of built-in headphones is amazing. I still haven't figured out how to put my headphones on while putting on the Vive.

The FoV is pretty good on the Oculus cameras albiet a bit less than the vive's lighthouse. With two cameras I don't run into many issues unless playing Onward or something that requires me turning 360. I'm travelling atm so I actually just use one camera.

Very "comparable" and I'd argue you're actually getting more value for the $200 cheaper Rift than the Vive due to comfort and ergonomics of the HMD and controllers.

[TwoBit]

Room scale tracking is just about the only aspect which the Vive is better. Rift is better at everything else. Comfort, performance, controllers, optics, audio, microphone, apps, screen door.

[whicks]

Nothing, as far as I'm aware. At $598 you'd get the headset, controllers, and two tracking cameras. Also any of the free games that come with the Rift/Touch.

[andybak]

I've barely played a single non-VR since I got VR. That's going back to mid-October 2016 so hardly a flash in the pan.

[ekianjo]

That's just 6 months. Wait another year before having a final conclusion on it.

[andybak]

Sadly I will cease to be a useful test subject as I've decided to learn VR dev and develop a product. My time spent in VR has dropped in proportion to my time spent in Unity...

[strictnein]

> court-side sporting events

I still want to stand on the 50 yard line during a live game, or position myself wherever the action is, with fully realized 3D models of the players.

[nostalgiac]

NBA does this already.

https://watch.nba.com/page/vr

[intrasight]

I've long thought this to absolutely be the killer app for VR. And just imagine the advertising options.

[kirrent]

That sounds like what virtually live is promising: http://virtuallylive.com/

[chadgeidel]

I'd like to "ride along" with my favorite rally team. Wow, what a great experience. Even if pre-recorded that would be simply amazing.

[mbesto]

How much of these companies are actually making money?

[haydenlee]

Almost every company I mentioned is already making money.

[cmollis]

shameless plug for my brother's VR startup: http://www.patchworkvr.com (also in real estate/architecture). Think of it as matterport, only with cheaper commodity cameras.