-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Kotaku: The Oculus Quest is how VR should work
- Thread starter Arthands
- Start date
You also won't have a chance to use a PSVR2 for at least two years, since Sony has said they wouldn't introduce any PSVR followup at system launch. And the current PSVR has pretty limited tracking and very limited controllers. As for "$400 is a bit high given the tech.", the displays are exactly the same as Vive Pro, the SOC is the same as Samsung Galaxy S8, it has two full 6-dof motion controllers...I don't think Oculus is making any money off of the hardware at all.
Throughout the entirety of Blood and Truth, almost 50% of my brainthoughts were "god, I wish this was on good hardware."
Any VR announcements in the near future that aren't wireless are going to go over like a wet fart for me. I want this form factor focused on and improved upon.
Any VR announcements in the near future that aren't wireless are going to go over like a wet fart for me. I want this form factor focused on and improved upon.
I don't really believe anything in interviews. For all we know it was just good PR. You may be entirely right, but it could also have been FUD for justifying reusing the Oculus Go panels (and the real reason... cost savings). Also, John Carmack pretty much has nothing to do with the PC side. Considering he's basically been completely vindicated with the Quest's success, I'm sure his stature has risen even further. If he thinks 72hz is fine, it'll stay there. If he says he thinks raising it should be priority #1, it'll be priority #1. I feel like it's going to be whatever Carmack wants at this point (and I honestly don't think he cared one iota about what was happening on the PC side. And certainly not enough to waste energy fighting over somebody else's battle).
I played my psvr in waves but recently the main barrier for me to play was the setup. I had to fully reboot my ps4, set the camera up depending on what game I'm playing, get the wires situated depending on the experience, make sure my lighting was good for tracking, keep everything on a flat surface for a min for calibration and make sure I wasnt having the hdmi handshaking issue. And this is before I even got in game where I had to test for drift, readjusting the camera if I get to much world wobble and sitting on/stepping the cable, pulling out the hdmi cables. On the quest you just have to put it on basically spin in a circle to draw your play space and you're ready with the only tracking issues for your hands is if they are behind your head. For multiplats there is no reason to get the PSVR version, even with better lighting and graphics it would still be the gimped version
By Christmas this thing will be the new Wii. It's that awesome. And it's the first real mainstream gateway into VR.
I'm aware. I'm just saying for me it's a $400 stop gap between PSVR and PSVR2, that is harder for me to justify. At $250 It would be more of an impulse purchase. Most of the VR experiences I enjoy are seated and use the regular controller.
The PSVR costs 350 and that requires you to buy the console as well. How is $400 all-in-one including the controllers overpriced?
Let's say you buy into the Quest platform and Oculus releases a new headset every 3 years. This new headset will have exclusives that the previous can't play. So are they going to ask that you pay $400 every 3 years? My concern is limited shelf life and support. A console will traditionally be supported for at least 5 years and so will a headset. At Christmas last year you could get a PS4 and PSVR with 2 games for $400. A Quest just plays VR stuff. A console does more than that. Just depends on how you look at it. I'm just speaking to personal value.
For whatever reason in my room the main problem with PSVR is having to reposition the camera all the time. I just sold my PSVR and ordered a Quest from Oculus that shipped today. I had a Rift for a short time and enjoyed it, but didn't play enough to justify the cost at the time.
I think you're making a big assumption that the new games will be exclusive to the new headset. New mobile games aren't exclusive to new phones.
Yes
You're not though, you said the tech wasn't worth the price they're asking. That's not the same thing as saying it's not a good purchase given your situation.
People said PS3 at launch was overpriced but the technology justified its price. It's more so that it can feel overpriced compared to competing options.
More so a worry than an assumption. You can't say that there won't be exclusives if devs feel like they need the extra power to make new experiences. If they had started with a higher baseline like a Snapdragon 855, I'd feel like it would have more longevity. Plus if we want to see more ports from future PCVR and PSVR games, it might require leaving Quest 1 behind.
Last edited:
The competing option which is $50 cheaper and requires a $300 console? I mean I get it, you don't want to spend the money on it but you're wrong to say the tech doesn't justify the price. If it had a Snapdragon 855 it wouldn't be $400.
It's a bit disingenuous to judge any price by a black friday deal almost nobody was able to get and hasn't ever happened since. You might as well say nobody should ever buy a PS4, it's overpriced, because a few people only had to pay $200 for it once.
Im not sure a standalone device is a great investment at this point in VR's lifespan tbh. Will be interesting to see how it evolves over time, but being limited to wearable tech to render your experience AND devs needing to port the game to a specialized device is a risky proposition right now imo
I mean, looking at the launch lineup what makes you think porting things to the Quest is hard? It's Android based, devs already have plenty of experience with mobile games...
Depends on the game. I mean Switch is easy to port to in some cases but if every game could work well on it then we would be seeing alot more support from third parties.
Regardless, any game not originally designed around mobile hardware will need not-insignificant work to get it ported. And surely most of the Quest launch titles have benefited from being out for a few years on other platforms.
The thing is, I don't think there's a single well known VR game that doesn't want to port to Quest. At this point, we're either hearing port announcements or disappointing stories of high quality VR titles that got rejected. The reality is, VR sales have been tuff so far. If this thing becomes the break out hit (early signs point to), everyone is going to want in on a robust ecosystem. They're going to have zero problem attracting the cream of the crop.
Considering the Super Hot sales data for the Quest, I think it is well worth any effort to port stuff to the Quest.
Saying the mobile hardware is a stumbling block doesn't seem to be an issue in the real world, considering it has almost all the VR killer apps at launch.
I guess the thing that bothers me as someone with a gaming PC, but also a strong interest in the Quest (I ordered one and it's our for shipping). Is there any technical reason why the Quest can't also tether to a PC and play games like the Rift? Is the only reason it can't because they wanted to simplify their marketing? I don't feel like I should have to buy two headsets to have a great tethered experience and the benefits of the Quest.
Pretty sure people already figured out ways to do just that.
ALVR is pretty good. It's also a best case scenario of 60ms lag. Is it really possible to get this any lower? Is this an acceptable replacement for the Rift S (ie would people be bitching it was killed off for it)? These are legit questions I've teetered back and forth with. The reality is the Snapdragon 835 can't be fed a raw signal over USB-C. If it were the 845, it would be possible and it'd be a much more cynical situation. If ALVR/TPCast Air are as good as you could have possibly achieved with Wifi streaming, it probably doesn't matter whether it was officially supported or not. We're getting that level of connectivity regardless. It's a difficult question to truly know the answers to.
This. Give me the ability to tether to my PC and play my Rift games... and I'm there instantly.
As much as I want to hop on the quest train I think I'll wait until the library becomes a bit more robust before buying. Not to mention and firmware updates to improve the experience and iron out any bugs it might have.
I think it's absolutely worth it, but I'm going to stick to my PSVR bc it's not a big enough jump.
VR just gets very expensive very quickly so I'm one to hold back on it.
VR just gets very expensive very quickly so I'm one to hold back on it.
This has me sooo excited. Like, sure the graphics might look simplistic compared to a 2000$ PC set up, but if the immersion that wireless with awesome tracking brings that seems like the big deal here.
I thought the same. But Beat Saber custom tracks made me weak so I got a Quest.
The weird thing is that with the Rift S and the Index being expensive but debatably a minor upgrade to what I already own in terms of features, the freedom of the Quest and the inside-out positional tracking does make a good case for it being the next headset I get if I do end up getting a new one soon. Of course it would depend on the software, but allowing you to be unteathered does open up the possibilities for arena tracking and new types of experiences. Having owned a GearVR, I know that wireless and inside-out tracking it a bigger deal than PCVR enthusiasts usually would like to admit, but mobile VR has been limited by tracking and performance. Quest does address some of these problems so it does seem like Oculus was right in going this direction in terms of pushing adoption, while other hardware manufacturers can continue to push the technology in other ways.
I still don't think I'll jump in just yet, and the Index does peak my interest just a bit more in terms of features, but cost in VR is still an issue. I'll probably end up waiting until whatever ends up being the next generational leap.
I still don't think I'll jump in just yet, and the Index does peak my interest just a bit more in terms of features, but cost in VR is still an issue. I'll probably end up waiting until whatever ends up being the next generational leap.
I wish you could also plug it to a PC as a display that could also take advantage of the graphic card power but unfortunately we can't have both in one helmet at least for now