Why don't Oculus make a home console/custom pc?

[Anthony Hopkins]

Most people are pretty convinced oculus won't be on Sony or xbox consoles.
So why don't they make there own?
After watching oculus connect 6 it's clear that one of there main goals is to expand installbase.
In a way they have already released 2 consoles with the quest and go, but the more rich and diverse games are only on oculus for PC, so why not make a $500 console or semi custom PC box to run all oculus games?
This would reduce a barrier for some people who don't want to bother with an expensive PC.

If a smaller Chinese company can make a semi custom PC like the Zhongshan Subor.

Surely Facebook can make somthing similar but even better!

 

[Squirrel09]

I think keeping to headset matches their long term goals, and differentiates them from the big 3.

 

[nsilvias]

the same reason no other company tries to get into producing game consoles, its really hard to break in without major support and something to make you standout.

 

[Deleted member 2620]

I have my doubts that there's a big audience for this that wouldn't be covered by the Quest.

 

[LewieP]

So like a regular PC but locked to Oculus stuff?

Or if it's not locked to Oculus stuff, what benefit would it serve for Oculus vs people just using regular PCs?

Are they making an entire OS? Does it only support VR headsets, or monitors too?

Perhaps a console would be more viable, but the investment required to go head to head with Sony/MS/Nintendo is huge. It's no coincidence that we've not had any viable new entrants into the console space since 2001, and that was Microsoft. If VR is required, there'd be a lot of games they would never get. If VR is not required, what problem would it solve for users that existing consoles do not?

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

the same reason no other company tries to get into producing game consoles, its really hard to break in without major support and something to make you standout.

Click to shrink...

True, but they are not exactly doing big numbers with there PC platform, so having a semi custom PC option would not hurt.
It would increase overall installbase.
The quest is great for what it is but its lacking the big games that ppl want to play.

 

[Video Games Are Dumb]

The Quest is already the answer. Power has always been the difference between PC and console. No difference here.

 

[Beer Monkey]

The Quest is their home console.

Also it allows sideloading, unlike any other console. It's an open platform with a walled garden installed.

 

[Noodle]

Because consoles are giant money pits you sell at a loss in hopes you make it back through software sales.

 

[Quample]

Eventually, maybe, but tons of people have VR capable PC's right now Steam's library is currently necessary for VR. Oculus already has Oculus Home platform and their mobile Quest version of it. VR boxes should come later.

Edit: the biggest upside to having an Oculus box would be things like consistent performance/quality control, which we could use. And thats why PCVR is currently tinker central, which is fine if you can handle it. The PCVR user experience does need a lot of improvement, though, which hopefully things like OpenXR and time will fix.

 

[Martylepiaf]

The Quest is their console for people without a VR ready PC

 

[Beer Monkey]

The Quest is their console for people without a VR ready PC

Click to shrink...

With Link it's the best of both worlds.

 

[chaostrophy]

There's a lot of companies already making gaming PCs. Lots of competition.

 

[medyej]

The Quest is their standalone unit. Why would they go backwards into needing to be tethered to something and require another whole purchase, which drastically reduces the number of people that they can get into VR, instead of just advancing the Quest and making it more powerful over time?

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

So like a regular PC but locked to Oculus stuff?

Or if it's not locked to Oculus stuff, what benefit would it serve for Oculus vs people just using regular PCs?

Are they making an entire OS? Does it only support VR headsets, or monitors too?

Perhaps a console would be more viable, but the investment required to go head to head with Sony/MS/Nintendo is huge. It's no coincidence that we've not had any viable new entrants into the console space since 2001, and that was Microsoft. If VR is required, there'd be a lot of games they would never get. If VR is not required, what problem would it solve for users that existing consoles do not?

Click to shrink...

I think the best solution would be a semi custom PC like the Chinese one.

The sales pitch would be

• A sleek oculus hardware box, a head set, controllers for $799
• You can buy the oculus hardware box separately for $499

Out of the box it would boot into the oculus OS, but it is possible to put windows if you want, daul OS is also an option. The $799 package is the easiest and cheapest way to get high fedelity VR, you just need to plug everything in like a console and you're ready to go.

Maybe it's a bad idea but oculus not having a console like option is also a bad idea.
I honestly think Sony or MS will become the VR Kings of the future because they won't have this weird hardware divergence oculus now has, they have split there game pool, oculus quest does have some good stuff but it's not getting the big games like stormland, asgard wrath and medel of honor.
It kind of reminds me of Nintendo when they struggled to have enough games for there home console and handheld.

 

[Martylepiaf]

I think the best solution would be a semi custom PC like the Chinese one.

The sales pitch would be

• A sleek oculus hardware box, a head set, controllers for $799
• You can buy the oculus hardware box separately for $499

Out of the box it would boot into the oculus OS, but it is possible to put windows if you want, daul OS is also an option. The $799 package is the easiest and cheapest way to get high fedelity VR, you just need to plug everything in like a console and you're ready to go.

Maybe it's a bad idea but oculus not having a console like option is also a bad idea.
I honestly think Sony or MS will become the VR Kings of the future because they won't have this weird hardware divergence oculus now has, they have split there game pool, oculus quest does have some good stuff but it's not getting the big games like stormland, asgard wrath and medel of honor.
It kind of reminds me of Nintendo when they struggled to have enough games for there home console and handheld.

Click to shrink...

Oculus OS would be what, a modified version of Windows ? Can they do that ? Your idea sounds a lot like console on SteamOS, it flopped hard because they had to use Linux and people didn't care about a console PC hybrid.

 

[Ionic]

I'm pretty sure I remember when the Rift launched there were officially licensed PC/headset bundles. You would see them next to the Rift at Best Buy and stuff. This basically already happened. Now they have the Quest which is their console.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

Oculus OS would be what, a modified version of Windows ? Can they do that ? Your idea sounds a lot like console on SteamOS, it flopped hard because they had to use Linux and people didn't care about a console PC hybrid.

Click to shrink...

Whatever OS they use, the goal is to have an option that replicates the ease of use of a console and the price if a console.
Oculus would need to work out the best OS solution but I'm sure they would make somthing good, I'm guessing it would be based on Windows like how oculus Windows works now, but with an option to boot directly into the oculus app, like how it works with the quest and go, but they use android.

And it would be sold as an oculus product like how the quest and go is, but people can tinker with it like they can tinker with the quest and go.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

I'm pretty sure I remember when the Rift launched there were officially licensed PC/headset bundles. You would see them next to the Rift at Best Buy and stuff. This basically already happened. Now they have the Quest which is their console.

Click to shrink...

It needs to have consistent marketing, design and packaging with the rest of the oculus hardware line up.

To be honest I don't care if they don't, but if they don't I think they will lose marketshare in the VR market, I can imagine PSVR2 being at like 15million installbase in 2023 and devs moving to it more because it has the biggest and best installbase.

 

[Ox Code]

Whatever OS they use, the goal is to have an option that replicates the ease of use of a console and the price if a console.

Click to shrink...

no console they could make would be better at ease of use than not needed an extra box in the first place.

 

[LewieP]

Whatever OS they use, the goal is to have an option that replicates the ease of use of a console and the price if a console.
Oculus would need to work out the best OS solution but I'm sure they would make somthing good, I'm guessing it would be based on Windows like how oculus Windows works now, but with an option to boot directly into the oculus app, like how it works with the quest and go, but they use android.

And it would be sold as an oculus product like how the quest and go is, but people can tinker with it like they can tinker with the quest and go.

Click to shrink...

I don't think Microsoft would give them access to the Windows source code to create their own fork of it.

Android is Open Source.

Console economics work because they are subsidised hardware based on the knowledge that they'll sell like 5 years of software at sixty dollars, a whole bunch of subscriptions + DLC, and a load of high margin accessories. This model is predicated on being able to be the exclusive distributors for these things.

If the device you are proposing were to be running Windows, Oculus would have no ability to be the exclusive distributor. I'd also say that VR is far faster moving than established console cycles, and they can't even count on devices released today still being in use in 5 years time.

If it were running a different OS (a forked version of Android, or something totally new), it's not going to be compatible with existing Windows software. They might be able to lock it down, but I think it would be pretty difficult to get mass industry support in line with existing consoles. Are developers going to target this device specifically over other far more proven platforms like Steam or Playstation?

What extent of "tinkering" would be allowed if they are locking it down like a console?

If it would be Android based, it sounds more like what you would want would just be a more powerful version of Quest. Maybe something that wasn't a self-contained unit (ie a base unit with either a wired or wireless connection to a headset, so that they could soup up the performance.

But I think between the existing solution of Quest, and the Rift for PC, it would just be a middle ground that doesn't really carve out it's own niche.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

no console they could make would be better at ease of use than not needed an extra box in the first place.

Click to shrink...

Yes, it will be the most ease of use for high fedelity VR games.

 

[I KILL PXLS]

I don't think it would make sense for a number of reasons, but the biggest one is that Facebook's ultimate goal with VR is not just games. Games will be part of it of course, but eventually it would be part of a larger portfolio (this is why Facebook Horizons is a thing). They don't have any interest in investing in console hardware because the Quest is closer to their endgame goal of a simple headset that works without the need of everything. I also think you aren't going to see many if any Oculus exclusives that don't have a Quest version past Medal of Honor.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

I don't think Microsoft would give them access to the Windows source code to create their own fork of it.

Android is Open Source.

Console economics work because they are subsidised hardware based on the knowledge that they'll sell like 5 years of software at sixty dollars, a whole bunch of subscriptions + DLC, and a load of high margin accessories. This model is predicated on being able to be the exclusive distributors for these things.

If the device you are proposing were to be running Windows, Oculus would have no ability to be the exclusive distributor. I'd also say that VR is far faster moving than established console cycles, and they can't even count on devices released today still being in use in 5 years time.

If it were running a different OS (a forked version of Android, or something totally new), it's not going to be compatible with existing Windows software. They might be able to lock it down, but I think it would be pretty difficult to get mass industry support in line with existing consoles. Are developers going to target this device specifically over other far more proven platforms like Steam or Playstation?

What extent of "tinkering" would be allowed if they are locking it down like a console?

If it would be Android based, it sounds more like what you would want would just be a more powerful version of Quest. Maybe something that wasn't a self-contained unit (ie a base unit with either a wired or wireless connection to a headset, so that they could soup up the performance.

But I think between the existing solution of Quest, and the Rift for PC, it would just be a middle ground that doesn't really carve out it's own niche.

Click to shrink...

I guess it's a no go then, I would imagine reworking oculus Windows game to work on android or Linux would be to much work.

 

[Weeniekuns]

Probably because they don;t like to throw money away?

 

[FreDre]

The big money is on mobile.
Facebook endgame is to gather as much user data as possible, so they can sell it to 3rd parties.
Making a tethered experience on a computer is nice for gaming, since it brings experiences that cannot be matched right now with mobile, but that's not their main goal.
If they manage to make AR Ray-bans that tracks everything you see and where you go, they will surpass Google, data wise and could be too big to fail.

 

[the-pi-guy]

I don't see any benefit.

If you're a consumer, why would you spend $500 just for a computer that only plays VR games?
Even for the ease of use aspect that consoles have, I think Oculus has done really awesome with making Oculus pretty easy to use. I don't see them gaining much out of it.

If you're Facebook/Oculus, there's not a lot of incentive to do that. Console hardware tends to barely break even. Sometimes it actually loses a bit of money.

So there's no profit incentive, and I don't see a consumer interest in it. Oculus in particular is going after ease of use hardware. Having a new PC with only Oculus software isn't in their direction.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

Probably because they don;t like to throw money away?

Click to shrink...

Then why are they throwing money away now?

 

[Ionic]

Then why are they throwing money away now?

Click to shrink...

I'm like, the first guy to push back against anything Facebook and Oculus do because I hate their consolidating of the VR market into brands instead of a hardware agnostic medium, but man, I don't think you understand how successful the Quest is relative to other VR hardware.

 

[Imran]

Then why are they throwing money away now?

Click to shrink...

I don't know that any definition of "throwing money away" includes "not doing the thing I want"

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

I'm like, the first guy to push back against anything Facebook and Oculus do because I hate their consolidating of the VR market into brands instead of a hardware agnostic medium, but man, I don't think you understand how successful the Quest is relative to other VR hardware.

Click to shrink...

Do u see the post I was replying too?
I don't think they would be losing money any more so then they are now.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Thread locked at Request of OP