KOH WEE LUN CLARENCE, A0187535U

My first interaction with Virtual Reality (VR) headsets came when my friend asked if I was interested in developing for VR because his team in Engineering was keen to do VR training simulations with the Oculus Quest. I was first shown “First Contact”, a demo scene Oculus provides and was immediately blown away by the amazing graphics. I was also amazed by the ability of me to interact with the scene, which I knew was not actually realistic, but it felt so unbelievably real. After my first introduction to VR, I was certain that this is a field I want to work in, because I see its potential in solving so many real-world problems.

In fact, I was so intrigued by VR that after I was shown the demo scene, I went back home and immediately searched for how I could purchase my own Oculus Quest, only to realise how expensive it is (priced around $739). Upon further research into gaming headsets, I realised that PlayStation VR cost about $443, which sounds better in terms of price, until I realised that I would still need to purchase a PlayStation console and other hardware to complete the PlayStation VR set up, which ultimately suggests that it is a lot more pricey than the Oculus Quest. Developing for the PlayStation VR itself is also a hassle because you need to get the devkit from Sony themselves and it can be overwhelming for new developers to dive into development for VR. Oculus Quest development is pretty much the same as developing for Android since the Quest runs on Android, therefore the barriers to entry is lower because there are tutorials readily available on the web.

Then came the Oculus Rift S, which is about the same price as the Oculus Quest as well. And considering that it is a PC-powered headset, I felt that it would be inconvenient, especially comparing to the Oculus Quest which allows to walk around a virtual environment with no annoying cables attached. In general, these VR headsets felt a little pricey to me, especially since I just began getting involved in VR. That was when I found out about the Google Daydream View 2.

The Google Daydream View 2 is available at a relative low price of SGD $160. It seems lightweight and very portable, compatible with many Android phones such as those from Samsung, Huawei, LG and Google themselves. This compatibility suggest that it is a very accessible headset for anyone who is keen to try out VR for entertainment purposes. Based on video reviews, it appears to user-friendly with not a too complicated set up process. The fact that it is made of microfibres suggests that it is incredibly lightweight compared to the chunkier PC-powered headsets such as the ones by HTC or Oculus. The downside will be the graphical quality when compared to these PC-powered, higher end headsets. Also, if you do not own a phone which is compatible with the headset then you are unable to experience the Google Daydream View 2. However, in my opinion, this is the best entry level headset for anyone keen on trying out VR.

If I want to develop an application that everyone can experience easily, I would develop it for Android tested with Google Daydream View 2, because it will provide greater market reach albeit poorer quality graphics.

However, if I had the money, I would still choose to go with the Oculus Quest as my favourite VR headset. It is insane how portable the Quest is. When getting my project ready for demonstration to the Singapore Science Centre, all I really needed to do was to run my application once to test whether it works. There was no need to set up cameras around the room, connecting the controllers, turning on SteamVR, none of that extra setup required. On top of that, even though the Quest does not have as many games as the PlayStation VR, experts believe that the games available in the Oculus store will soon take over that of PlayStation store. Also, the Quest has superb graphics that is close enough to that provided with the Oculus Rift S, therefore, given the convenience, and the quality of graphics, I will put the Oculus Quest as my favourite VR headset.

I have never dabbled with any MR headsets, and while searching online, I realised that the concept of a MR headset is not clearly defined (most MR Headsets in fact offer more of a VR experience than actual interaction with the physical environment). Meanwhile, headsets defined as AR headsets such as the Microsoft HoloLens 2 and the Magic Leap One, allows users to interact with 3D virtual objects, and these objects can interact with the real-world users see. Therefore, I will be comparing these 2 headsets because in my opinion, the other MR headsets are in fact virtual reality headsets.

Based on the demos I viewed, I will be reviewing the headsets based on tracking and controllers, software platform and interface, and finally content and applications.

In terms of tracking and controllers, the HoloLens 2 stands out, because it can follow the position of the ten fingers of the user, to the point that you can play a piano in augmented reality. On the other hand, the Magic Leap 1 works with a controller, but also provides hand tracking features. However, the hand tracking feature of the Magic Leap 1 does not detect the position of the user’s hands in world space, but it merely detects predefined gesture commands.

In terms of the software platform and interface, the HoloLens 2 offers a very intuitive interface whereby the user can interact directly with buttons using their hands. In addition, the HoloLens 2 features voice recognition, which appears to be very easy to use. The Magic Leap 1’s interface seams pretty much like that you would get in a VR headset, whereby you scroll through windows using the controller and you cannot interact with the buttons on the interface directly.

And finally, the content and applications offered with the HoloLens 2 far exceeds that available for the Magic Leap 1. HoloLens 2 offers all applications available from the first HoloLens. It also includes a collaboration application called Spatial, which offers a unique and effective way of collaboration that I feel will revolutionise corporate meetings in years to come. The Magic Leap 1 has a lack of applications and current applications are technical demos rather than real life experiences. Even though the Magic Leap 1 is cheaper than the HoloLens 2, both headsets are very expensive in the first place. Therefore, I foresee that at this stage of MR headsets, the applications will be more catered to big companies who are keen on adopting MR in their training or day-to-day operations. Therefore, if I owned a big company and if I wanted to depend on MR for my workers, I would spend the extra amount of money to get the HoloLens 2 rather than the Magic Leap 1, simply because it provides a significantly better user experience. Therefore, I prefer the HoloLens 2.

I like the Google Daydream view for the VR headset. It is affordable with a lower starting price at 59.99. It is compatible with various Android smartphones and thus is more mainstream and consumer friendly as many consumers own an Android smartphone. I also like the fact that it looks completely different from most other VR headsets, it is built with soft breathable fabric for comfort and thus has the consumer’s comfort and experience in mind. In fact, the facepad is also hand washable, allowing users to keep the VR headset fresh and clean to share with friends.

As for AR headsets, Google Glass was the pioneer in that market. It made waves in the AR headset industry when it came out 2013 with the explorer version being released to certified “Glass Explorers”. It was a very novel product, with input being through voice commands and a touchpad mounted on the side of the device. Even the sound input was one of the first of its kind, using bone conduction to do so. However, it was not a viable mass market product and has thus pivoted for industrial use in the form of the Google Glass Enterprise Edition.