Samsung & Microsoft 'Mixed Reality' Partnership, Samsung Builds Wireless AR/VR Headset

Samsung appears to be making a strategic partnership with Microsoft as it produces what Korean Times reports is a “powerful cordless headset that supports both augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR).” The headset is said to make use of Microsoft’s “Mixed Reality” platform, and to make its debut at Berlin’s IFA technology fair in late August.

“Samsung Electronics is working on developing cordless and high-priced headsets supporting both VR and AR,” an unnamed Samsung official told the Korean Times. “Definitely, Samsung plans to use in-house application processors, OLED displays and sensors. But more importantly, Microsoft has lowered its demand for royalties as it is taking a multi-pronged approach to delivering a rich ecosystem of games and applications that will entice users.”

As a proviso, Samsung is also reportedly asking Microsoft to use Samsung-fabricated processors for both Windows “Mixed Reality” and Windows “Mixed Reality” Ultra computers as one condition for its continued support for Microsoft’s new businesses, another Samsung official told the Korean Times.

Confusingly, Microsoft currently uses the denomination “Mixed Reality” to denote a wide class of products, including the AR headset Hololens, and VR headsets from a variety of manufacturers that boast inside-out positional tracking, but no appreciable AR capabilities. A more apt description of a mixed reality device: a headset that has the ability to equally service AR and VR use cases—something Samsung says it’s allegedly making.

https://www.roadtovr.com/report-samsung-microsoft-boost-mr-partnership-samsung-builds-wireless-ar-vr-headset/?platform=hootsuite

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2018/05/133_248527.html

https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-microsoft-cordless-vr-ar-headset-mixed-reality/

If Microsoft plans to introduce living room MR / AR / VR for the next generation Xbox platform, this is probably the route they'd take.

2020-2021 is gonna be exciting.

I still think it's a shame that MS didn't get on board with VR with the Scorpio. They do great stuff on Windows.

Darn, darn, darn, I was so hoping for AR/VR Halo 6 Monsterbox edition this E3. :P

MS dropped the ball with VR, nobody will care for their shitty budget mixed reality headsets lol.

@Shewgenja:it fully supports it too, im a little shocked that they havnt done anything with that support yet.

@airraidjet: this is good but doesn't surprise me, ms stated that they weren't doing vr untill it was good wirless and cheap. so im hopeful that its only going to cost about $300,

they are kind of like the Walmart of technology now arent they?

'oh we will wait until others innovate and then we will copy on a large scale'

I wonder if this is a high-end headset or standalone. Either way it's nice to see more headset announcements. Apple are supposedly working on an AR / VR hybrid for 2020, now we have Samsung doing the same. Google are working on a 5500x3300 resolution per eye high-end headset, and Oculus are working on their 2nd gen headset as well. 2019 / 2020 / 2021 will see massive advancements in VR.

Not really. The cheapest Windows MR headsets are mostly better than PSVR; now we just need them to release the headsets for Xbox One X.

The fact that it will, "make its debut at Berlin’s IFA technology fair in late August," makes me feel that there will be not too much game support. At least not on Microsoft's end.

If Microsoft tried to market VR right now or even two years ago people would just use it to call them a failure for it. If anything Microsoft's doing just like they should for now, keep it in R&D until better timing, preferably use it to launch next system.

No fooling now..... This.

K, back to foolin. :P

It'll be better when the next gen base model Xbox can power the headset, because even though Scorpio is technically capable, the OG XBone and 1S most likely are not. And with the next gen Xbox, they'll have a CPU with Zen architecture (Zen 2 or Zen 3 or whatever), plus the headset will be wireless. I can see the reasoning why they're probably not doing VR/AR with Scorpio. Better to start fresh with a new gen.

Since 2nd gen headsets will almost certainly use eye-tracking and foveated rendering, we can probably expect VR GPU performance to increase by 50-60x when combined with next gen console hardware. That would be the perfect time to launch VR on Xbox, but I'd still personally like to see it earlier on the X with current Windows MR headsets.

Depends, if Samsung makes it a HoloLens 2 clone that can do AR and VR, they'll pretty much make VR and AR more mainstream to people and companies. Everything points to this being Samsung's HoloLens.

Pure VR is going to a very very tiny niche in the grand scheme of things.

Pure VR IMO will be a very tiny niche, the best route to take is merging AR and VR into a single headset, that's the route Microsoft, Samsung and others are taking.

@daniel_su123: Yeah I've heard that, it should also help play in smaller environment's / not run into shit

It's definitely not going to be a tiny niche. Pure VR will without a doubt reach hundreds of millions. But it will take the AR / VR hybrid route to reach billions. I don't believe that route will really show it's potential for another 5-10 years because AR is still behind; so pure VR will have it's run in the meantime.

I play on a 6 by 6 feet playspace, I rarely see the boundaries.

If you can't manage to clear 6 by 6 feet, you're an execption.

of course not, it's niche now because it's so expensive and the cheapest one (psvr) is not for everyone, the positional tracking and motion controll tracking is far from perfect, which can induce motion sickness in a lot of people.

If vr is going to be cheaper, it will be selling like hotcakes.

Besides ar is not going to replace vr. I don't want to see my boring living room when I'm in a fantasy world like skyrim vr, that just doesn't work.

The biggest challenge for vr is going to be stereoscopy, since it does strain the eyes, but oculus has already a solution for that with the next rift, multifocal displays should solve this problem.

High-end VR will definitely reach 100+ million users sometime next generation because it will be a big part of what defines the next gen and I could see many franchises transitioning solely to VR at the end of the generation, especially Battlefield, CoD, etc.

But standalone VR can also reach more than that too. All you need is a $200-300 standalone headset that has the same specs and features as what 2nd gen high-end headsets will have, and plenty of content to go along with it, and you'll see it fly off shelves. That will happen around 2024/2025.

I love this conversation,

people spending an extra $10,000 on a car whose difference is 100% vanity is normal, but VR is too expensive

@tryit: just because some guy spends £10,000 on hand stitched leather for his Ferrari doesn’t mean VR isn’t too expensive for me.

there is a difference between

'VR is too expensive for me'

and

'the problem with VR as an industry whole and why it will not succede like hand stitched leather on a Ferrari is because its too expensive'

we are not talking about why you cant justify the cost, we are talking about the industry as a whole compared to success or failure

and of course I just got sucked back into a conversation about sales figures and income for companies....dang it!

Well new industries are always expensive at first. Price cannot dictate the future success or failure of an industry this early on.

there's a big difference between a $5,000 car and a $15,000 car. $600-1000 for VR I could put to a lot of better things. If it was $300 for a decent VR I might get it. Not everyone who games has cash just to throw away.

ok let me use an example:

Honda Accord: around $23,000

Lexus: around $40,0000

difference is $20,000. what is the different mostly between those two cars?

nothing.

so that is $20,000 spent on basically vanity and status.

yet $600 for a VR headset allowing you TONS of different VR experiences is too expensive?

and why do I have to explain this in detail?

@tryit: Fuel efficiency, How long its going to last, The quality of the build, Performance to fuel ratio. There's plenty of difference between the 2 more than just vanity and status.

oh..your one of those who believes there is not a market for vanity upgraded cars..sorry not having that conversation.

maybe I should have used $1000 purses as an example instead

@tryit: there is but that's when your spending for interior leather or a paint job that's costing you $5000 . But VR would be more market towards males and any women who would buy a VR wouldn't be purchasing a $1000 purse in the first place. and if they did spend a $1000 on a purse or the extra $5000 for a paint job they would buy VR without thinking about the cost.

lol..

got it, only women spend money on vanity products and upgrades and men never do and thus a market for spending on vanity doesnt exist for men, thus VR is too expensive

@tryit: reread the first line, the truth is not every one has the money to just buy a full vr set up, it has nothing to do with vanity and until it becomes more affordable the common person wont get it. not everyone sits at there computer 24/7 instead of going outside like some

I KNOW THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the question is not 'can everyone afford a Porche'.

this should not be hard to understand.

'I find it ironic when $10,000 more for a product (put in any example works for you) strictly for vanity is marketable (not to everyone but enough people to make a market) but VR is not because its too expensive(not just for some or many but enough to make a generalized statement)'

@tryit: But that's a stupid logic, the average consumer is not that rich defiantly not enough to make a generalized statement about a $600-$800 product

the 'average consumer' also can not afford a Porche

The logic is not that there arent people who cant afford it, not that its the majority but that there isnt any market at all!!

HUGE difference between what was said, what I am saying and what you are trying to say.

Is there market for Porches? YES

Does Porche make money? YES

Has Porche succeed? YES

Is Porche too expensive? YES

so is VR (like Porche) too expensive?

That in itself is a bit of misrepresentation of pricing. VR headsets range from $200-500. You can quite literally grab a high-end PC headset for $224 that will still give you a high-quality experience.

This should be good for the PC market. Interested to see what they come up with.

@stereointegrity: we don't know if this is for the PC market though.

#@blueberry_bandit: E3 is on its way.

@daniel_su123: you think this is for Xbox?

@blueberry_bandit: Not if your in Australia

YES! Porsche is aimed at the richer people, VR is marketed at the adults. The market isn't really there yet until it becomes more affordable.

The vast majority of consumers rejected VR. Sorry, but it's the truth. There's no practical purpose of VR whatsoever, beyond gaming. Everything else can be done with MR and AR. I predict that devices like HoloLens will eventually be able to do VR and it'll replace the VR market entirely, leaving Valve, Sony irrelevant.

Almost all VR content has been demos and nothing inspiring, if you compare it to HoloLens there's much more inspirational and practical uses.

All we have here is 1+1 == 4 .. doesn't matter what they do, it's wasted resources. If Sony + Nintendo were on-board then maybe things would be different but we can't expect miracles.

As we speak, Oculus Go is number 33, 37, Vive is at 60, and Rift+Touch at 83 on Amazon's Top Sellers. You are simply dead wrong. It's a growing segment, and Sony mentioning Moss in their recent statement about E3 was no mistake. No one is sweeping VR under the rug. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Samsung already sells Oculus VR compatible adapters for Samsung's Galaxy phones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Gear_VR

The next partnership is with MS for Xbox Any Anywhere games.

Samsung Gear VR uses RiftCat middleware software to glue it together with Steam VR.

Using modern smart phones as VR display hardware lowers VR's entry cost.

Tryit is right though, for the most part. If the average consumer finds VR valuable enough, they'll pay big bucks for it. Though the problem is that it's not popular enough or valued, hence VR is 'too expensive'. I mean you have some people spending $1,000 on the iPhone X, $700 on Androids. You have people buying designer clothes, expensive cars, huge HD flat screens, etc. It's valuable to them, so they're willing to spend money on it. Once VR gets to that point, they'll be able to charge about $400 for it.

That's totally incorrect. VR has many many uses beyond gaming. This should be well known at this point.

• Socializing and connecting on a fundamental human level beyond things like video chat. This is a huge draw.
• Tourism and remote-viewing for concerts and events, Another massive draw.
• Virtual work-spaces and higher productivity, as well as virtual screens superior to physical screens of the same resolution, eventually beating real 4K IMAX screens.
• Education with long-distance virtual classrooms and in-class field trips.
• Training simulations.
• Architecture visualization and visualization for product design.
• Robotics 1:1 input.
• Recording memories to go back into via 360 degree positional videos that you can walk around inside.
• Treating depression and other disorders and being used for therapy,
• Self improvement and expression via sculpting / art, acting, roleplaying.

As for the content, there are dozens and dozens of full games that aren't tech demos. You've done basically no research into VR, nor do you actually understand VR.

And VR has many things unique to it that AR cannot replicate despite you saying otherwise. VR is the best way to socialize at distances, and always will be; it's a way to experience new worlds and even our own world with anyone, at any time, anywhere.

As for consumers rejecting it, that's an irrelevant statement because it applies to literally new tech medium in existence. If you want to word it that way, then consumers rejected cars, TV, electricity, smartphones, PCs, consoles, everything. It takes quite a long time for anything to gain reasonable traction.

2nd gen headsets will be valued that much by people because they'll almost certainly be able to replace any screens at 1080p or below, and have much more enticing telepresence content, and be far more capable at replicating the human body 1:1 for socialization. We'll see more light-field captures and 360 degree positionally tracked videos that feel just like you are there.

People who have no concept of what VR actually is, but then come to the safety and annonimity of the internet to crap all over the medium is what's holding it back the most IMO. PSVR on a PS4 Pro is life changing, I can't even imagine how good VR could be on a PC with specs as good as all hermits here claim to have. If we, as humans, let VR fail I hope the entire planet dries up and dies along with it.

NO..

VR is targeted toward high end gamers.

just like there are is high end audio equipment, there is now high end gaming equipment.

like high end audio equiptment with $2000 speakers and all I have been saying for more than a decade now that there is a market for super high end gaming gear.

there is likely more people out there willing to spend $10,000 on an amazing gaming setup then there is people will to spend $10,000 on an audio system

Then why are they set up at every telecom store. Seems like the last place to try to market to high end gamers.