Lone Echo II is the last Oculus Rift PC exclusive.

Atmos

Well-known Member
Goodbye and farewell. As much as I liked the first one yes I did buy it and played it through Revive I won’t be buying the second part. I won’t be re installing the Oculus Software, I won’t be re-installing Revive in the hope it works. And I won’t be buying a Quest 2.

But the game it’s self looks great. I wish Oculus supported PCVR as a whole in the same way Valve has.

Are you sad to see Oculus drop support for PCVR? No headsets, no AAA games?

Some argued to the death Oculus would never drop the Rift line or AAA titles, but reality is here. The arguments of old have been settled.

Oculus now stands for Stand-alone and all the compromises that comes with it. It’s now down to every other PC developer to support AAA PCVR gaming. Exactly how I said it should be since 2016.

Oculus invested heavily into an artificial and unsustainable business model. A stack of cards that was destined to fall. And fall it has.
 
Last edited:

Thug

Moderator
I am confused.
Have they (as you say) dropped 'support' for PCVR, or just stopped doing 'exclusives' for PCVR?
What i read, it looks like its just exclusives they dropped, just like most of VR manufacturers dont have exclusives.
They still support PCVR as it clearly says that you can still use/buy the link cable, that makes the Q2 one of the best PCVR head units around (beaten only by the G2 in the under 1k bracket for a full kit).

Also where does it say that they are dropping AAA titles?

I admit, i read this whilst watching a Youtube video, so didnt really take it all in.
 

Thug

Moderator
Nope,, just re-read it and still cant see where they are dropping support of PCVR.
I also cant see where they are dropping AAA titles. In fact it even mentions that they are funding Spintercell and Assassins Creed, so certainly doesnt appear that they are 'dropping' AAA titles.

Do you have any further information/links to back your claims up?
Not trying to argue, just want to read where you read it.

Also what is this artificial and unsustainable business model that you mention?
 
They've just stopped doing AAA exclusives for PC VR, that's all.

Makes sense when they have a standalone headset that's sold a shedload and not every single person that's bought one is using it as a PC VR headset. They've just bought half a dozen developers so they'll continue to bring AAA games to both platforms.
 

Thug

Moderator
They've just stopped doing AAA exclusives for PC VR, that's all.

Makes sense when they have a standalone headset that's sold a shedload and not every single person that's bought one is using it as a PC VR headset. They've just bought half a dozen developers so they'll continue to bring AAA games to both platforms.
Thats the way i read it, but Atmos was quite clear that Oculus have dropped support for PCVR and AAA games, but not yet shown anything to suggest that.
I am just not sure if there is anything to support this, or if he is just misreading it or actually making opinions to look/read like facts.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Goodbye and farewell. As much as I liked the first on yes I did buy it and played it through Revive I won’t be buying the second part. I won’t be re installing the Oculus Software, I won’t be re-installing Revive in the hope it works. And I won’t be buying a Quest 2.

But the game it’s self looks great. I wish Oculus supported PCVR as a whole in the same way Valve has.

Are you sad to see Oculus drop support for PCVR? No headsets, no AAA games?

Some argued to the death Oculus would never drop the Rift line or AAA titles, but reality is here. The arguments of old have been settled.

Oculus now stands for Stand-alone and all the compromises that comes with it. It’s now down to every other PC developer to support AAA PCVR gaming. Exactly how I said it should be since 2016.

Oculus invested heavily into an artificial and unsustainable business model. A stack of cards that was destined to fall. And fall it has.
Valve have released one proper PCVR game so I'd calm down a bit.

They've been silent on the other 2 promised games and now seem all-in and more bothered by the Steamdeck than any VR hardware.
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
whilst i would say the original post is clearly miss representing the article. I dont think his view is entirely unwarranted.
Sure, from that article it infers oculus will still be funding PCVR titles it is just that they will come to quest too.

That is how it reads.............. I could live with that and be quite happy - esp if crossbuy - if the reverse was true...... but games like the more recent star wars game and The climb 2 both of which had oculus money show this isnt the case imo.

As much as it pains me to say it (because oculus native PCVR titles were excellent) I think there is a good chance that future oculus funded titles will be quest standalone only.

I disagree about his view about valve however. 1 title does not make a library any more than 1 tree makes a forest. At valves pace of releasing vr titles, oculus will still have funded more PCVR titles than valve have by the time i hit the grave.

i presume other developers are welcome to sell on the oculus rift store just like they can on steam
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Goodbye and farewell. As much as I liked the first on yes I did buy it and played it through Revive I won’t be buying the second part. I won’t be re installing the Oculus Software, I won’t be re-installing Revive in the hope it works. And I won’t be buying a Quest 2.

But the game it’s self looks great. I wish Oculus supported PCVR as a whole in the same way Valve has.

Are you sad to see Oculus drop support for PCVR? No headsets, no AAA games?

Some argued to the death Oculus would never drop the Rift line or AAA titles, but reality is here. The arguments of old have been settled.

Oculus now stands for Stand-alone and all the compromises that comes with it. It’s now down to every other PC developer to support AAA PCVR gaming. Exactly how I said it should be since 2016.

Oculus invested heavily into an artificial and unsustainable business model. A stack of cards that was destined to fall. And fall it has.

Not really. They just hit a home-run with the Oculus Quest line. Their user base is much bigger than with CV1 and they're prospering due to it.

They're in a catch 22 situation now where they either support their loyal PCVR crowd or their millions of new Quest users. Pleasing both is difficult.

I think their Rift line was sustainable ; just the Quest one is much better
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
whilst i would say the original post is clearly miss representing the article. I dont think his view is entirely unwarranted.
Sure, from that article it infers oculus will still be funding PCVR titles it is just that they will come to quest too.

That is how it reads.............. I could live with that and be quite happy - esp if crossbuy - if the reverse was true...... but games like the more recent star wars game and The climb 2 both of which had oculus money show this isnt the case imo.

As much as it pains me to say it (because oculus native PCVR titles were excellent) I think there is a good chance that future oculus funded titles will be quest standalone only.

I disagree about his view about valve however. 1 title does not make a library any more than 1 tree makes a forest. At valves pace of releasing vr titles, oculus will still have funded more PCVR titles than valve have by the time i hit the grave.


Exactly. Once Valve have 2-3 single player titles AND 2 online fully fledged competitive games WITH active support (aka counter strike, L4D) in VR; then we can say they support VR.

At the moment, Oculus utterly destroy them in this regard.
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
I think their Rift line was sustainable ; just the Quest one is much better
The sad thing is Facebook could easily support , promote and advance both lines. The quest 2 is a capable PCVR device (i.say that as someone with a quest 2 and a fairly high end reverb G2)

It boggles (and saddens me) that oculus don't actively promote both pcvr AND standalone.

Imo that is the least they should do. I also think they could easily support 2 HMDs one being higher end with a more premium price such as say £599 .
Oculus could make the reverb G2 obsolete very easily. A similar specced device to the G2 but using insight tracking and oculus touch and the oculus superior software running it would spank my G2 with better controllers, better tracking, better battery life and better performance and if HP can sell the G2 at £600 (it's been less than that ) then oculus could easily do it.

I can forgive them for not doing that but I can't forgive them for not continuing to promote pcvr with the quest.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
The sad thing is Facebook could easily support , promote and advance both lines. The quest 2 is a capable PCVR device (i.say that as someone with a quest 2 and a fairly high end reverb G2)

It boggles (and saddens me) that oculus don't actively promote both pcvr AND standalone.

Imo that is the least they should do. I also think they could easily support 2 HMDs one being higher end with a more premium price such as say £599 .
Oculus could make the reverb G2 obsolete very easily. A similar specced device to the G2 but using insight tracking and oculus touch and the oculus superior software running it would spank my G2 with better controllers, better tracking, better battery life and better performance and if HP can sell the G2 at £600 (it's been less than that ) then oculus could easily do it.

I can forgive them for not doing that but I can't forgive them for not continuing to promote pcvr with the quest.

We’ve been through this before though. I posted about it ages ago when the quest 2 was released and a lot of people didn’t believe me.
Writing was on the wall when they released the rift s. We all just need to get over it now.
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
We’ve been through this before though. I posted about it ages ago when the quest 2 was released and a lot of people didn’t believe me.
Writing was on the wall when they released the rift s. We all just need to get over it now.
Like I said I don't mind the latter. Quest 2 is a great pcvr device. Higher end would be great but not the end of the world.
I don't see the logic however in not pushing quest more as a pcvr device and embracing both markets.

Sure choose to only fund games which support the quest.... But equally only fund if on the rift as well.
It's a bit like a greasy spoon never selling a bacon sandwich again because they want to promote their sausage sandwich. Why not promote both?

People who want to find their own games would be free to develop for what ever they want of course.
The rift S never interested me at all
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Like I said I don't mind the latter. Quest 2 is a great pcvr device. Higher end would be great but not the end of the world.
I don't see the logic however in not pushing quest more as a pcvr device and embracing both markets.

Sure choose to only fund games which support the quest.... But equally only fund if on the rift as well.
It's a bit like a greasy spoon never selling a bacon sandwich again because they want to promote their sausage sandwich. Why not promote both?

People who want to find their own games would be free to develop for what ever they want of course.
The rift S never interested me at all
It’s because they want their game’s to be sold as many times as possible and few people have a gaming pc.

Therefore makes sense to stress and market the standalone over the pc.

also keeping their quest user base away from pc stops them being exposed to the steam VR store therefore keeping ppl locked into oculus walled garden
 

Thug

Moderator
whilst i would say the original post is clearly miss representing the article. I dont think his view is entirely unwarranted.
And that would be fine if it was his view/opinion,, but Atmos has wrote it as if it was fact (using words like 'reality is here', 'argument settled', 'unsustainable business model that has fallen').
He has done similar before, and makes people think that what he has wrote is correct. It may be correct and that why i have asked for proof so i can read upon it.
It’s because they want their game’s to be sold as many times as possible and few people have a gaming pc.

Therefore makes sense to stress and market the standalone over the pc.

also keeping their quest user base away from pc stops them being exposed to the steam VR store therefore keeping ppl locked into oculus walled garden
I think what they lose in standalone games, they would game in people buying the hardware, becoming aware of standalone and its benefits and possibly buying into it. They would also raise their name higher int he VR world.
Supporting both is vital for the greater good and future of VR.
 
Last edited:

KingD

Active Member
same old anti-Oculus nonsense here, there is no point waving the flag about Valves " PC VR support" with literally ONE title 🤣

many of us have said before, Oculus are going down the path that suits them and that's the Quest line, so makes sense to make titles for that hardware, I'm sure games will still release for PC also, but they wont be EXCLUSIVES. I'm sure if anyone else makes some decent PC VR games Oculus will still be able to play them. At the moment, when I finish playing the last 4 or 5 VR games I have, I'm not sure I will have a need for PC VR as there is almost nothing coming.
 

Presuming Ed

Well-known Member
I think there are things to read into this move. As the article suggests, Oculus will no longer make dedicated PCVR headsets. So it stands to reason, to me, that they will no longer make PCVR games either.

But the PC link feature for the Quest 2 is a strong selling point as it allows people who own them to play PCVR games that they can't play on the Quest alone - stuff that needs peripherals like flying, driving, racing sims, and any other PCVR games available through Steam.

However, it continues a worrying trend. Companies like Facebook / Oculus don't make strategic decisions without significant research. And it seems to me that Facebook's research has told them that the future of VR is in standalones, and that PCVR isn't worth investing in.

And if that's the conclusion they've come to, similar research, plus the trend that Facebook have set, may bring other major players to the same conclusion too.

Standalone VR is massively attractive. You don't have to buy a £1k+ PC before you buy the headset. Can you even buy graphics cards these days?! All that pain is bypassed.

What will be interesting to me is, should other standalone headsets emerge, whether the Oculus standalone platform will support them. Their platform is very established and, should they introduce support for other headsets, could remain so, no matter what.
 

Presuming Ed

Well-known Member
Some argued to the death Oculus would never drop the Rift line or AAA titles, but reality is here. The arguments of old have been settled.

Oculus now stands for Stand-alone and all the compromises that comes with it. It’s now down to every other PC developer to support AAA PCVR gaming. Exactly how I said it should be since 2016.

Or maybe it's just time for PCVR developers to follow Facebook's trend and abandon it. Be careful what you wish for.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
same old anti-Oculus nonsense here, there is no point waving the flag about Valves " PC VR support" with literally ONE title 🤣

many of us have said before, Oculus are going down the path that suits them and that's the Quest line, so makes sense to make titles for that hardware, I'm sure games will still release for PC also, but they wont be EXCLUSIVES. I'm sure if anyone else makes some decent PC VR games Oculus will still be able to play them. At the moment, when I finish playing the last 4 or 5 VR games I have, I'm not sure I will have a need for PC VR as there is almost nothing coming.
I think there are things to read into this move. As the article suggests, Oculus will no longer make dedicated PCVR headsets. So it stands to reason, to me, that they will no longer make PCVR games either.

But the PC link feature for the Quest 2 is a strong selling point as it allows people who own them to play PCVR games that they can't play on the Quest alone - stuff that needs peripherals like flying, driving, racing sims, and any other PCVR games available through Steam.

However, it continues a worrying trend. Companies like Facebook / Oculus don't make strategic decisions without significant research. And it seems to me that Facebook's research has told them that the future of VR is in standalones, and that PCVR isn't worth investing in.

And if that's the conclusion they've come to, similar research, plus the trend that Facebook have set, may bring other major players to the same conclusion too.

Standalone VR is massively attractive. You don't have to buy a £1k+ PC before you buy the headset. Can you even buy graphics cards these days?! All that pain is bypassed.

What will be interesting to me is, should other standalone headsets emerge, whether the Oculus standalone platform will support them. Their platform is very established and, should they introduce support for other headsets, could remain so, no matter what.


I think this is all old news. I posted months ago about Oculus leaving PCVR; or at least putting it severely on the backburner and it the writing was on the wall when they released the Rift S, rather than a true evolution of CV1. Then when they released the Quest, and the Quest 2, and optimised every title for the Quest.. it became even more obvious.

Oculus have simply finally confirmed it.

I can't really blame them. I am bitter, in that I prefer cutting edge high end VR titles like Stormland, Asgards Wrath and Lone Echo to some of the rubbish on the Quest; but.. at the end of the day.. sales, success, user base and furthering VR for their vision are always going to take precedent over what we want.

Oculus were probably never in VR for the high end PC gamer. It was just their gateway in to develop the tech and test the waters. I feel they want to be the 'Apple/Android' of VR. Tight, convienant experiences using a headset which can accomplish this at a competitive price point; truly making it mainstream.

Sony & Valve are more gamer-orientated with higher fidelity experiences and strong support for their native platforms. Then again, I feel weird even mentioning Sony when they haven't released PSVR2 and I feel even weirded mentioning Valve, who have only released one title.


I think the bottom line is that no one in the VR-sub space is holier than thou and they're all lacking in one way, shape or form.

Oculus tried with PDVR. They really did. They bundled CV! with goddamn 8 games at one point. But sadly, adoption wasn't strong enough but the Standalone Quests was. They've made some really kind moves such as Airlink and the Oculus USB C tether cable to provide a swansong to PCVR gamers and I think Oculus will continue to support higher fidelity version of their games on PCVR.


However what is clear is the complexity of games ifrom Oculus native studios will be very subpar. Anything that can't run on a Q1/Q2 won't see the light of day (LE2, Asgards Wrath, Stormland, Defector). I was initially a bit frustrated with Oculus a few months ago (/a year ago) when I did post my topics on this.. but now with months past, Valve having released nothing new, Sony just loving the PS5 success.... Oculus, despite their flaws, are still the most committed to VR gaming (despite their obvious social media based biases and aspirations).





TLDR:
This move from PCVR was very obvious from 1-2 years ago
Videogames from Oculus will now only be as good as the Quest can support so say goodbye to cutting edge games
Oculus, despite their flaws are still better than their competition
Valve aren't worth talking about in VR with one SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN title to their name
Sony haven't even released the PSVR2
 

JustinTheNick

Standard Member
If Facebook concentrate on making a stand-alone headsets popular to the point that the VR userbase grows AND those headsets are PCVR capable AND the headsets are increasingly being used for PCVR, (both of which seem to be the case), then that is support for PCVR.

It shouldn't be down to Facebook to invest in PCVR titles forever more, that job should by now be shifting to the established software devs. otherwise sustainability isn't going to happen.

I'm no longer interested in moaning about Facebook or Valve not producing enough PCVR games. That time has passed.

What matters is getting affordable good quality PCVR capable headsets used by people... that's the PCVR support that's needed.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Goodbye and farewell. As much as I liked the first on yes I did buy it and played it through Revive I won’t be buying the second part. I won’t be re installing the Oculus Software, I won’t be re-installing Revive in the hope it works. And I won’t be buying a Quest 2.

But the game it’s self looks great. I wish Oculus supported PCVR as a whole in the same way Valve has.

Are you sad to see Oculus drop support for PCVR? No headsets, no AAA games?

Some argued to the death Oculus would never drop the Rift line or AAA titles, but reality is here. The arguments of old have been settled.

Oculus now stands for Stand-alone and all the compromises that comes with it. It’s now down to every other PC developer to support AAA PCVR gaming. Exactly how I said it should be since 2016.

Oculus invested heavily into an artificial and unsustainable business model. A stack of cards that was destined to fall. And fall it has.


Atmos, Oculus tried. Their contributions to PCVR gaming makes Valve's look pitiful. Valve have 1 excellent game, 1 demo and a handshaking simulator.

Oculus clearly had infinitely more success with the Quest line. Everyone I know, knows what a Quest is. This is simply not the case for the CV1. They need to follow and support those that pay them the most money to further development and the casual user base, as opposed to the PCVR user base, seem to be doing just that.

There is nothing to stop Valve from shelling out a lot of money to a few developers for some exclusive games but they don't want to do that. Anything Sony will do will be exclusive to their platform.

Valve took very little risk with the Index by the price tag they put on it. I really doubt they're making a loss ever on any hardware unit sold; and thats because they aren't committed to VR. Contrast this with the steam deck where I feel they're CLEARLY making a loss on the base unit; and it becomes obvious they've taken a loss on that because they're more committed to their pancake steamstore front than the VR one.

Once Valve have released 5 VR titles with 1-2 multiplayer ones including in that; we can talk. Once Valve have released 3 VR headsets, again we can talk. Until then, their commitment is shakey and shadey at best. The longe rthey continue to do 'Valve time' on supporting VR, the higher the chance VR will die.

Oculus did all they could do. They released an aggressively priced PCVR headset, they re-released much better controllers, they practically gave games away for free, they did eventually give and bundle 8 games for free... all at a CHEAPER price point than the Vive; clearly taking a loss IMO. They didn't get the love they needed (aka financial incentive) and finally have decided to leave. I can't even hate them for it when their contributions to VR utterly destroy and dwarf what everyone else have done.




I still have faith in Valve; but at this point in time, I feel embrassed to mention the two companies in the same sentence when talking about PCVR gaming contributions. Given Valve's own track record of dumping their fans despite the success of their franchises (HL3...); its hard to properly trust them.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
If Facebook concentrate on making a stand-alone headsets popular to the point that the VR userbase grows AND those headsets are PCVR capable AND the headsets are increasingly being used for PCVR, (both of which seem to be the case), then that is support for PCVR.

It shouldn't be down to Facebook to invest in PCVR titles forever more, that job should by now be shifting to the established software devs. otherwise sustainability isn't going to happen.

I'm no longer interested in moaning about Facebook or Valve not producing enough PCVR games. That time has passed.

What matters is getting affordable good quality PCVR capable headsets used by people... that's the PCVR support that's needed.


Agreed. Oculus chasing the casual market will have a knock on effect of more people wanting to explore the higher end of VR. Its then up to OTHER studios like Valve who only support PCVR to entice users with those experiences.

I went from PSVR -> CV1 -> ,,, -> Eventually Index because of this.

For a casual person, they'll likely now go Quest -> G2 -> Index dependant on budget. They'll use a Quest for a couple of months then think wow, I wonder what it like to play Skyrim.. with bigger FOV, and better audio etc. And bam, thats where Valve need to genuinely support that superior experience. Why should Oculus bother when they have their own battle going on in casual VR?


Honestly, its embarrassing that we even have this conversation re: Oculus vs Valve. They're in polar opposite directions in every way. Oculus are active in support of VR, constantly developing games, we know there will be new hardware. Valve are silent, cancel games and have zero public roadmap for VR. Oculus chase the casual market, Valve have gone for the high end PCVR. Oculus take a loss on VR headsets to try and enhance VR, Valve have one of the most expensive VR headset packages on the planet given its age.


I think the comparisons between the two companies need to end. Sure we can talk about which headsets are superior based on tech; but company directions for both are way off.

Even Valve with the steam deck.. there is a missed opportunity there for a portable VR machine ; which Valve themselves have said isn't part of the build.
 

Presuming Ed

Well-known Member
For a casual person, they'll likely now go Quest -> G2 -> Index dependant on budget. They'll use a Quest for a couple of months then think wow, I wonder what it like to play Skyrim.. with bigger FOV, and better audio etc. And bam, thats where Valve need to genuinely support that superior experience.
But that's the elephant in the room - in VR / PCVR enthusiastc circles at least.

It's not a simple upgrade. It's an obvious route for someone who already owns a capable gaming PC. And it's a great route. Get the Quest with nothing to lose, have some fun with it, plug it into the PC, see what else it can do and off you go.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of Quest owners own a capable gaming PC. I wonder if vendors have an idea.

For non gaming PC Quest owners, there's no realistic upgrade path, there's a lot of cost in it. And maybe, even if they have £2k to spare, there are other things they'd prefer to spend it on.

There's a law of diminishing returns in play here too. £300 and I can have a pretty decent VR gaming experience. Another £2000 and what do I get? The biggest difference for me, above resolution, frame rate etc. is the ability to use peripherals and introduce the sim aspect. But that's not going to appeal to every causal gamer.

Time will tell. If new PCVR hardware emerges from Valve, Samsung, whoever, in the near future I'd be reluctant to invest in it, because as I get more and more bored of existing VR titles, and as the amount of investment those titles have in VR reduces (looking at you, Elite), the less I use my existing hardware.

It's turning into a bit of a spiral, sadly.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
But that's the elephant in the room - in VR / PCVR enthusiastc circles at least.

It's not a simple upgrade. It's an obvious route for someone who already owns a capable gaming PC. And it's a great route. Get the Quest with nothing to lose, have some fun with it, plug it into the PC, see what else it can do and off you go.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of Quest owners own a capable gaming PC. I wonder if vendors have an idea.

For non gaming PC Quest owners, there's no realistic upgrade path, there's a lot of cost in it. And maybe, even if they have £2k to spare, there are other things they'd prefer to spend it on.

There's a law of diminishing returns in play here too. £300 and I can have a pretty decent VR gaming experience. Another £2000 and what do I get? The biggest difference for me, above resolution, frame rate etc. is the ability to use peripherals and introduce the sim aspect. But that's not going to appeal to every causal gamer.

Time will tell. If new PCVR hardware emerges from Valve, Samsung, whoever, in the near future I'd be reluctant to invest in it, because as I get more and more bored of existing VR titles, and as the amount of investment those titles have in VR reduces (looking at you, Elite), the less I use my existing hardware.

It's turning into a bit of a spiral, sadly.

Pc gaming has always been against the law of diminishing returns yet it exists
 

The latest video from AVForums

Samsung HW-S60A + LG SP8YA soundbar & KEF LS50 Wireless II Reviews: Movie & TV Show News & Reviews
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Sky Q sports coverage gets live HDR
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 21st July 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Sky and ITV agree long term deal
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Yamaha launches YH-L700A headphone with 3D Sound Field
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Netflix to add games as subscriptions slow
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom