From informal conversations I've had in the past with both people from Valve and PSVR it seems like PSVR and Vive numbers are closer to projections. I think Vive stole a lot of potential high end buyers from Oculus, not launching with Touch was a mistake for them. I also believe this market is a lot more price sensitive than Oculus thought it would be, The Rift has currently sold 200K units more than the DK2 with a much bigger marketing push, more high quality content and a better product, but 2x (or 3x if you include Touch) price point. I wonder if they should have made a "Super DK2". Lower quality headset hardware but Rift quality tracking and touch support at a lower price.

Anecdotally, many people believe VR is a niche market that is comparable to 3D TVs and doesn't add much, but I've also met people that would buy a highend VR headset (quality matters also) if the price was right and the setup was easy. A "cheap" ($250-$400) easy to use all-in-one unit with inside out tracking, tracked controllers and a good library of games, software and content could be the tipping point for the VR market.

To be honest I'm still not even sure if I'm wrong about it supporting room scale, I've seen articles mention it but their website gives me doubts.

I think that Oculus is avoiding marketing room-scale because Touch legitimately does not do it very well compared to the Vive:

* It almost certainly requires a third camera, which adds another $79 to the cost.

* Even with the third camera, the controllers lose tracking fairly easily if they're oriented away from the cameras (e.g., orient them towards your torso, but with nothing blocking the line of sight to the cameras).

* Even with the third camera, you end up with a smaller tracking volume than with the Vive.

* Lots of Touch owners are reporting serious tracking issues by just setting up two sensors in opposing corners. Others say it works fairly well. Your results will most likely be random.

* The Rift cable is barely long enough to work well if you're actually walking around your space rather than just standing still.

* In the same vein, Oculus does not sell or endorse any extension cables for the Rift HMD. I've seen folks try out a lot of them with mixed success.

* The sensors have to be plugged straight into your PC, which with three cameras uses up a lot of USB ports.

* Even with the third camera, you'll only get one extension cable from Oculus, so the two existing sensors will still be pretty tethered to your PC.

* Even with the extension cable, it's not easy setting up the cameras in optimal locations throughout the room.

* Oculus does not supply any mounting brackets or sell any brackets on their website for mounting against the wall.

* The Rift and Touch do not come with any linking box, nor does Oculus sell one separately.

---

With all that said, Touch is a fantastic product and deserves the glowing reviews it's getting. It's just not designed for room-scale. It's workable, but not ideal.

AFAIK neither company mentions this in their supported PC specs, though the Rift compatability tool will warn you if you have incompatable USB ports.

I would really have liked to have known this going into my Vive purchase - I've owned it for 2 weeks and have been able to use the device twice in that time.

The other issue is my older motherboard/CPU combo which may or may not be able to support the extra PCIE use.

Overall, fun times.

I think Oculus doesn't want to dillute it's marketing and reach the largest core group, so front facing standing. Many people don't have 5 by 7 feet free. We're currently at the stage of enthusiasts though, which have more money and space than typical users, and will move shit to make space (I sure did), which could definitely be a mistake...

This is why I wish they would stop focusing on games. Looking at the Vive and Rift websites the #1 thing they're looking to sell people with is games. Why not utilities? Why not COMMUNITIES?

I wish they would make a big push for something that could expand our ability to meet with other people virtually. Why not a MUCK where you can speak with and interact with other people in a virtual space? It seems like there is so much more potential for self expression and interaction than people are building right now. AltspaceVR and Playstation Home were examples of this, but really doesn't bring a whole lot to the table that you couldn't get in any other MMO game.

If someone is making something like this and you need a backend or web developer, drop me a line :)

One of the most exciting VR apps is Google Earth VR, which highlights that the "killer app" for VR will have telepresence at its core.

The demo at the bottom of the page is a virtual meeting room. It is... unfortunately broken right now and I've been too busy supporting VR clients to fix it yet, but perhaps you can see the idea there.

https://vtime.net/

Also, PSVR has sold many units, but is 2 million short of their projection[1], which is pretty abysmal. I wanted them to succeed, like every other VR enthusiast since they're the lowest more reasonable entry point as millions of people have PS4's, but that just doesn't seem to be the case... :(

[0] People have pried for when CV2 might be expected and Oculus usually say "Lifetime of Rift's will be between smartphones and gaming consoles" Phones refresh every year, consoles every 8-ish, so something like 3?

[1] over the life of the first consumer version of the Oculus Rift."

As for PSVR, I've seen reports that they are actually supply constrained (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/14/sony-expect-playstation-vr-sh...) and the smaller market size isn't due to lack of demand. It might also be because there still isn't much content available for PSVR and Sony is waiting for a larger lineup and for more PS4 Pro unit sales.

As the owner of a DK2, I can say that would have been a much wiser strategy. They CV1 costs roughly twice as much as the DK2 but the increase in cost is mainly attributed to adding features rather than improvements to the weaknesses of the DK2.

The biggest drawback to the DK2 was its low display resolution and having tried the CV1 and Vive, the bump to 2160x1200 made little improvement. The switch to a standard RGD pixel layout from the DK2's pentile display made more of a difference than the resolution itself. The increase in refresh rate also added little benefit over the 75hz of the DK2 in my experience.

I was massively disappointed by the news that the CV1 was forgoing the leap to 4K but I was still willing to buy in to the superior pixel layout and positional audio if the price difference mirrored the tiny improvement in the overall experience. I was expecting a $400 headset and was floored by the $600 price point.

Now I'm just clinging to my DK2 and hoping Oculus doesn't completely kill support for it while I wait for another challenger to recognize this huge gap in the market. I would have already bought thr OSVR HDK2 if it broke the HDMI spec and allowed for a true 75hz+ refresh rate.

I disagree. The biggest drawback of the DK2 and every other VR headset on the market is that the headset itself is big, bulky, and uncomfortable.

VR manufacturers really need to get the headsets down to around the size and comfort of regular glasses to prevent them from being tossed in the closet with the rollerblades and other novely items which are too annoying to use on a regular basis.

Once the novelty wears off, people will stop using it if it's not comfortable and convenient.

I've heard some people say that AR is really where VR can make mass-market appeal and I'd certainly agree that prospects for something like an environmental HUD a la Glass are much better than an "immersive" experience that leaves you blind to the real-world.

Clean up the fit and finish and minimize VR sickness for the mass market 2.0 product. Early adopter products are about keeping people engaged with content and unique features.