Which VR head-mounted display are you most interested in and why?

Nov 12, 2012
2,540
0
415
London, UK
#1
So the hype for HMDs seems to only be building and building, with new versions of the Oculus Rift every few months over the last couple years, and more companies getting in the game like Sony, Microsoft, and now HTC/Valve. It's all pretty exciting and the next year or so is gonna be pretty big with (hopefully) most of the big names launching their flagship products.

I'm sure many people are like me and started hearing about this as a serious thing when the Oculus kickstarter launched, but now there seem to be enough serious competitors it's time to take a look at which one would be best for you and why. I'm interested on hearing what some of you are interested in and your reasons because I'm not entirely sure myself.

I've compiled some data on the current HMD options, but please be aware that because of the constant updates and a lot of information floating around some information may be missing/incorrect. I'll try and keep an eye on the thread and update this post with updated info if people correct me.

Let's take a look at some of the top options:

Rift [Oculus (owned by Facebook)]
Release: TBA 2015
Price: between $200 and $400 (expected)
Latest version: Crescent Bay (Sept 2014)
Tech Specs: TBA (2560x1440p expected), ~20ms latency (estimate)
Previous versions: Dev Kit 1 (Sept 2012), Crystal Cove (Jan 2014), Dev Kit 2 (July 2014)
Vive [HTC+Valve]
Release: Late 2015
Price: TBA ($300?)
Tech Specs: 90Hz refresh rate, 2400 x 1080p
Morpheus [Sony]
Release: Early 2016
Price: TBA (under $1000)
Tech Specs: 120Hz refresh rate, 1920x1080, <18ms latency
Hololens [Microsoft]
Release: TBA
Price: TBA
Tech Specs: Mostly unknown, transparent lenses
OSVR [Razer]
Release: ETA June 2015
Price: $199.99
Tech Specs: 1080x1920 OLED display, open-source
Smartphone mounts
Gear VR [Samsung/Oculus]
Released: Out now (December 2014)
Price: $199, $249 with Bluetooth gamepad
Tech Specs: Just a head mounting case, specific Snapdragon variants of the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 can be used as the screen. 1280x144 per eye, < 20 ms latency.
VR for G3 [LG]
Release: March 2015
Price: free to customers who purchase a new LG G3 smartphone
Tech Specs: Another head mounting case, just a set of lenses that fit over the LG G3.
Cardboard [Google]
Released: Out now (2014)
Price: $20-25 (or make your own)
Tech Specs: It's made of cardboard. 2 x biconvex 45mm EFL acrylic lenses.
What are your current thoughts on VR/HMDs? What are you planning on getting, if any, and why?
 
Jun 3, 2014
1,830
0
0
#2
Well, up until a few days ago, I was probably most interested in Morpheus and then Rift.
But now, it looks like a lot of factors might influence my potential decision, including what kind of control scheme the Rift decides to implement.

I'm primarily a console gamer who dabbles in PC. I'd honestly rather just be able to use the Morpheus with PC so I wouldn't have to buy multiple sets of headgear.
 
Mar 9, 2012
6,423
0
0
#3
I'm interested in the one with the higher specs and the most (and most diverse) games. There is not enough information to make an actual choice so far.
 

BigMoose

Neo Member
Apr 29, 2014
150
0
0
#4
If Morpheus is actually as good as it sounds, it'll probably convince me to me pick up a PS4. In general, I'm more excited for HoloLens because of the applications it has outside of gaming.
 
Apr 23, 2013
14,066
0
0
#7
Whichever one releases as the best value. Right now, I've only tried the oculus DK2, and it was OK at best, with the 'screen door' view.

It'll really just depend on what releases when, how good it is, how much it costs, and what I can use it for. Morpheus is of little use to me if it's PS4 only.

Either Oculus or Vive, whichever works better and is worth the price. I don't plan on dropping more than $300ish for one, so we'll see how good they are and how much they are. Until i've tried them personally, I can't say.

I have no confidence in hololens, and I really only see oculus and valve as being the ones that are super-serious about PC gaming support. Since Valve is basically making this *FOR* steam, I have a feeling that the Vive will be the best, but we'll see.

It just depends on price, reviews, and support. We don't really know either of those 3 until they're released. I *REALLY* doubt i'll be getting one this year unless I *NEED* it for something.
 
Oct 5, 2011
537
0
0
ca
#11
All of them, the one that provides the best shit for the consumer will be the one winning in the end.

Personally most hyped about Vive and Rift but Hololens will be interesting.
 
Jun 17, 2014
19,094
0
0
USA
sirtaptap.com
#12
Way too early to say really. The PC space is currently a huge WTF with tons of new info and unannounced stuff. Mobile is...not for me. PS4 is the only other option and I'm pretty interested, but that's sort of a win-by-default situation.

Morpheus and Valves' VR have the most of my attention for now. Sony seems to have the right tune for VR and some exciting potential stuff lined up, and Valve seems to have the best position for PC VR now that Oculus seems decreasingly relevant. Sensors sound great, Valve's VR API sound great. Will be nice to not give Facebook money, too. But on PC I'll buy the best balance of specs and "it actually fucking works in games" which is my biggest concern.

HoloLens is interesting but it's not really VR and I doubt it'll be gaming focused. I'm also annoyed by the misleading name.
 

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Jun 9, 2007
27,188
9
1,185
#13
just a couple of notes:

the rift is expected to be 2560x1440.

for consistency, i believe you could list the resolution of the vive to be 2400 x 1080. all the devices split resolution to half per eye.

personally, im most excited about the vive because i know that valve likes the idea of open hardware and i'm 100% into valves vision for the future of gaming hardware.

this could change if oculus' motion control is incredible and valve doesn't respond with something better.

I think they should also get some headphones on there like oculus did.
 
Jan 12, 2010
8,742
0
600
Atlanta, GA
#14
It's a tie between the Rift and the Vive. The positional tracking of the Vive sounds like it could give it an edge, not to mention it's designed for games by a gaming company (an amazing one at that). However, I'm sure Oculus has some crazy tricks up their sleeves. They have a ton of funding, a bunch of great people working there and 2 dev kits that have been open to public scrutiny that they can learn from.

Morpheus has the best aesthetic and comfort design so far, though.
 
May 27, 2014
25,437
5
0
#16
valve is the only company going with an inside-out positional tracking system. they win my support by default.

also the rift is expected to be 1440 P not 1080 p
 
Aug 2, 2014
3,696
1
0
www.andytatnall.com
#18
I'd thought Rift was targeting a resolution higher than 1080.

Anyway, that's the one I'm most looking forward to, followed by Morpheus and then Hololens. I feel that Oculus is the one taking the time to get it right, is the one building a whole infrastructure to support it as a platform, and is ahead of most everyone spec-wise.

EDIT: I see you updated the Rift listing to 1440.
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Feb 10, 2011
13,457
1
0
#19
Rift and Steams VR.



Because PC's have the power to make it spectacular. And Star Citezen.





Also looking forward to Morpheous on my PS4 though.



Holo lense looks great but not for gaming. Still excited about it.
 
Aug 14, 2014
2,661
1
0
#20
Vive and rift are most attractive. I'm not into morpheus because console limitations and i doubt i'm in the target audience. It also looks like ass in its current form. The mobile stuff is also interesting to follow.
 
Nov 15, 2012
137
0
0
Buffalo, NY
hellocld.com
#24
I'm pretty much exclusively a PC-only person, so I'm most interested in the Rift and the Vive (and depending on what Oculus and Valve have to say about their respective headsets/platforms this week I might start siding more with one or the other). But really, they're all interesting to me. Innovation from any one headset designer will push the others.

Oh, and the Cardboard seems super cool too. $20 + my phone for a little VR experience? Sign me up.
 
Feb 7, 2012
17,934
0
0
35
#25
Morpheus.

I own a PS4 but not a gaming PC. It's really that simple.

I think that PC VR will be more exciting though, but I'll be perfectly happy with Morpheus for now as long as incredible VR experiences are there.
 
Jun 12, 2013
1,715
0
0
#26
Well I am still the most interested in the Rift, but the ReVive could be interesting as well.

Unless they announce some sort of exclusive thing, I will probably end up getting Rift for PC, Morpheus for Ps4, and I already have GearVR.
 

ekim

Member
May 2, 2012
15,037
0
610
#27
Hard to say. I only have tried Cardboard which was surprisingly good for such a low-tech device. From the impressions, I would go for the Vive simply because of the positional tracking.
 
Nov 12, 2012
2,540
0
415
London, UK
#28
just a couple of notes:

the rift is expected to be 2560x1440.

for consistency, i believe you could list the resolution of the vive to be 2400 x 1080. all the devices split resolution to half per eye.
Thanks, updated.

valve is the only company going with an inside-out positional tracking system. they win my support by default.
Could you explain this for people like me who don't know much about the tech?
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,901
0
0
Windsor, UK
#29
Morpheus because I have a PS4 and I expect Sony to invest in some great games and experiences for VR. Plus I already have the PS camera and a couple of moves, so hopefully it won't be too expensive to jump in.

Oculus rift because of the expectation it'll be a higher spec than what HTC announced. Although I'm really curious about the Valve 'lighthouses' and controllers, valve also talked about that tech being licensable so fingers crossed Oculus jump on it for more robust positional tracking and a decent controller implementation.


What is reassuring is that there seems to be research sharing going on at least with Valve/oculus/sony so that should help make all of the different options better.
 
Jun 9, 2006
11,338
0
1,145
steamcommunity.com
#32
None of them. Choose not to wear any sort of obtrusive headgear when I play a game.
You are not wearing obstrusive headgear. You are sticking your head into a videogameworld. Look at that headgear thing like a portal to a new experience. I'm a gamer for the longest time of my life and it's really hard to understand how anyone would not like to at least experience it once. I think it will change everything, not just games.
 
Jun 17, 2014
19,094
0
0
USA
sirtaptap.com
#33
Morpheus.

PS4.

Edit: It also doesn't look as ridiculous as the rest.
Morpheus definitely looks the best, though looks aren't really a primary concern for me. Valve's looks pretty crazy but it's for a good reason so whatever

Morpheus on PS4 here as well. It sounds like Sony is aiming to keep it under $400.
I'm assuming most/many of these will be under $400
 
Jan 17, 2013
3,064
0
365
#35
I have a soft spot for Carmack and the Oculus, but Valve has me intrigued.

The mobile and console ones aren't interesting. Too many compromises on what you can reasonably expect to render.
 

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
17,936
268
1,105
#36
I think right now Vive is the one that interests me most : PC platform, so most open, and seems to have standard solutions for controls. It's a good thing it was introduced, since I'm not too fond of Facebook as a company, but otherwise I would have gone with an Oculus.
I could consider looking into Morpheus too, for the console experience, although VR may make the difference irrelevant. And owning two VR headsets is clearly overkill. Morpheus had the Move support as a good argument, but that was before Vive was unveiled.

I'm interested in Hololens too, but I consider it a different beast altogether, so that would be a separate project.
 
Nov 13, 2014
3,572
0
0
#37
Morpheus only, I don't play on PC so the rest are a no go by default.

If it's 250€ (even better if with the camera) or less, I'm there day 1. If more expensive, then we'll see. A Star Wars game on the horizon would probably make me pay more.
 
Jun 12, 2013
1,715
0
0
#38
Could you explain this for people like me who don't know much about the tech?
I believe ReVive use a camera or something on the device to get positional tracking rather than Oculus which currently has a seperate camera tracking LEDs on the headset to get positional tracking.

Carmack has been talking a lot about marker less inside-out tracking, but I don't believe it is going to make it into the CV1. They also acquired NimbleVR, which was creating a depth sensing camera.
 
Feb 13, 2010
9,734
0
0
twitter.com
#40
Aside from Hololens, the ones in the OP are all essentially designed to do the same thing. So for me it boils down to which does this 'thing' best, i.e. achieving presence and being comfortable to use. Which one that is remains to be seen, but the clear front runners are currently the Rift and the Vive.
 
May 27, 2014
25,437
5
0
#41
Thanks, updated.



Could you explain this for people like me who don't know much about the tech?
Krejlooc said:
H3XAntiStyle said:
You know I just wanted to take the time to say that crouching down behind a box, and tossing a grenade over it, in HL2VR is one of those things that GENUINELY makes me a giddy little schoolgirl. And there are incredibly few things that do that. I hope the things your group did in that mod become th defacto model for how VR fps's work.
So I like to distance this type of input from the term "motion controls" because of the kind of ignorant connotation it seems to have among some, so I call it positional tracking. And the cool thing about positional tracking is that, regardless of how you derive your position, in 3D space, it is always defined in the same way - as a matrix. What this means is there is a fundamental degree of interoperability among all devices that can track position accurately.

Realistically, there are only 3 ways currently correctly track position in 3D space, and each has it's draw back. You can use magnetic induction, as the hydras and STEMs do, you can use inside-out positional tracking, as the wiimote does, or you can use outside-in positional tracking, as the rift and playstation move does.

Magnetic induction tracking has a lot of problems with interference and accuracy, becoming logarithmicly less accurate as you step away from a central base. We use this, obviously, to track in HL2VR. As the "worst" tracking solution of the 3, I think it's still pretty good, and I think the STEMs will be much better. But I think inside-out positional tracking is the single-best solution available.

Outside-in positional tracking is subject to occlusion, meaning you can get in between the camera and the object being tracked, and it will lose position. Inside-out positional tracking mounts the camera on your headset, so it is always within your range of vision. The old limitation on inside-out tracking was that you needed external landmarks to track - the wii used a sensor bar, and valve was using QR codes taped to walls at dev days. Valve's headset uses a new technology they've created called Lighthouse - it is dedicated positional tracking hardware. Lighthouse sprays IR light across the room using a laser and prism, which is invisible to our eye. The cameras on their headset, however, can see these dots and use them to track in absolute, 1:1 accuracy anywhere in the room.

It hasn't been revealed yet, but their controllers track using the same thing. They are inside-out tracking, they never lose orientation. This is the single best tracking solution possible, so I'm pretty excited about it.

Regardless, back to my original point, they all boil down to the same information in the end. So you don't have to worry about competing standards - the way we are using positional tracking is the way all projects will eventually use it. It's inevitable. With Move being a big thing for morpheus, Sixense about to ship the STEMs, and valve packing in a positional tracking system, it's safe to say that, if you're developing for VR, it won't be unreasonable to assume you can track your user's limbs.
.
 
Dec 2, 2004
5,798
0
0
#42
My money is on the Morpheus having the a real "Mario 64" moment first: Sony controls the hardware, the control system, has a fixed platform, and talented first party devs.

That's not saying Oculus/Vive/whatever won't get there eventually, it'll just take longer.
 
Dec 5, 2008
16,136
84
805
#43
Most likely Vive because L4D3 will be the killer game, plus the space sims.

Rift maybe as well, but I trust Valve more than Facebook.

Morpheus feels like it is just going to get the left over PC games that happened to be ported to PS4. But I'm open to buying it as well if there are exclusives not on PC.

Really I will buy all 3 if there are compelling reasons to.

Definitely a PC one first though, because pr0n is the real killer app.

The MS one is too far into the future and too unknown, but it is the one that is most different from the rest. I dont' care about the mobile ones.
 
Nov 12, 2012
2,540
0
415
London, UK
#44
As far as my own two cents go, as someone who had the chance to try both the DK1 and Crystal Cove of the Oculus Rift, I think VR is going to be a game-changer and it will be really difficult to not buy one of the first wave that come out (something I don't normally do with tech).

I think at the moment I would agree with most of you saying the Oculus is losing relevancy in the face of HTC+Valve's announcement, with Morpheus occupying a unique space for the console realm.

As far as silly reasons go, the Morpheus looks really cool and I love the futuristic blue-light look, but the Ghost in the Shell-esque Vive is just so badass.
 
Jun 25, 2009
40,860
0
730
#46
Early to say.

Most likely Oculus Rift, if anything because it plugs into the PC, which is not only my main gaming platform, but also the vastly more powerful one.

I can see myself buying both the best PC solution, and the Morpheus for the PS4, tho.
 
Dec 17, 2010
396
7
615
kevintrehan.com
#49
If we are strictly talking VR (Virtual Reality), then Hololens doesn't count as that is AR (Augmented Reality). Although they sound similar, there is definitely a huge difference.

Virtual Reality completely isolates you from the real world and attempts to create immerse you in a different one. This includes things like the many headsets we've been seeing which focus primarily on vision and can be combined with other devices that trick your other senses into thinking you are completely in the game's world.

Augmented Reality, on the other hand, basis itself in the real world and uses visual overlays to enhance, or augment, the real world. This can include things like Hololens for gaming, a heads-up display on the windshield of your car to provide information like turn-by-turn directions (by highlighting a path on the road), or even something like Google Goggles (not Google Glass), which uses your phone and its camera to give information about things around you.

With that being said, I am most excited for Oculus Rift and Hololens for their respective reasons.

The Rift is being developed by a group of the best developers in the gaming industry. Also, with the financial backing of Facebook, they can achieve incredible things (despite how people may feel about Facebook). I've had the opportunity to use the Rift on a few occasions and I have been blown away each time (especially while playing Elite: Dangerous). That isn't to say that the VR solutions are bad (well, I technically can't make that judgement since I haven't used the others), but the team behind the Rift is the most crucial aspect about it. They also seem to be the most popular, but that really is a matter of perspective.

Hololens is a really cool piece of technology that I would love to try. I could see it being the beginning of real-life HUDs like we've seen in games. There are just so many practical uses for it outside of entertainment as well. I mean, the list is endless.